Gun Control

[TorontoReign]

We went insane as a culture.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Loudly chambering his shotgun was not the only possible method to make that burglar go away, though.

That is true; but the shotgun one works without being exposed to the intruder, they don't even need to see you; it immediately hit's the intruder psychologically.

Any indication the family is awoke and calling police would suffice.

This is false. The police are not there, they are no deterrent during the robbery, and a lot can happen before they get there—IF they get there. Police response times around here can vary anywhere from a few minutes to several hours. And (as was mentioned previously), they are no longer obligated to defend the home owner.

As for the lady with 38 special in her purse, 357 in glove compartment and 45 in console - sure bold of her to not be affraid of anything, but at 95 years of age, any physically fit person willing to drop her dead can easily do so by posing as a friendly, approaching for any fake reason to melee range, then simply overpowering poor soul with a surprise attack. Weapons needed? None...

So it's going to be, "But what if ninja's did it!" eh?
That was pointless and silly to type [IMO]. It marginalizes her need to feel confident and self-sufficient when threatened; and it omits the part about them knowingly attempting this on an armed defender*.

No one is going to cozy up to (and then punch) a 95 year old with a Smith & Wesson—that's why she has it.
The situation you've posed, could happen to a police officer, or a black belt kung-fu teacher, or anyone at all—a surprise attack indeed. So what? On a dark street in the middle of the night, you don't have any friendly strangers approaching (for any reason—fake or otherwise), and you should cross the street even if they look like lost girl scouts——I'd say ESPECIALLY if they look like lost girl scouts.
If the person crosses the street too, then you expect an attempted robbery; and probably be glad for having a weapon —if you chose to carry one, rather than not.
__
Pistols are designed for close range, but anyone who actually knows how to knife fight—and has one (and is within arm's reach), would be a serious threat to anyone in close quarters... but would make an easy target for a pistol.

The reason criminals use guns is to take the easy path to what they want. They want point-n-click loot, not a 1:1 stand-up fight between equals; (and it's often 2:1). The victim needs an equalizer. Especially if they are no match for their attacker physically.

 

[Alphons]

Coming soon, the Just Shoot Yourself In The Head Already Challenge, where the terminally stupid attempt to put a bullet through their own skull without hitting anything vital and dying. Bonus points if you can combine it with the Tide Pod Challenge and make your head pop in a fountain of foamy blue suds.

Already kinda happened.

Vlogger wanted to go viral and asked his girlfriend to shoot him in the chest, while he covered it with really THICC book.

https://www.google.pl/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/29/us/fatal-youtube-stunt/index.html

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Still not solo though. Nuts.

 

[Gizmojunk]

There is a video that I remember seeing online, of a teenager who willingly allowed three of his friends to squirt lighter fluid at his groin, (which soaked his pants), set it on fire, and then stamp out the flames by kicking him.

I honestly think that many people [now] assume (or it just doesn't occur to them), that getting shot —or hit by a car, doesn't actually hurt (or hurt much). I'm convinced that it's the influence of TV and video games on the clueless; (after all... the GTA guy get's up from it all the time).

Corporal punishment (of the non psychotic variety) would likely cure this in short order, that's how the mind learns; and it's demonstrated very effectively by the human body, anytime someone touches a hot surface and recoils in shock & discomfort, and they don't immediately do it again. These days...in our current social & parenting quagmire... this doesn't seem to happen for most kids; and so they never learn the life lessons; and are worse off for it*.

(...and these are not individuals that I would like to see them out purchasing guns; or even think that they might.
It's a double edged sword. You cannot take the rights away from only some... when they haven't actually committed crimes. They are citizens too; even if irresponsible. )

*There is this old stand-by video clip, that might show the true extent of this problem:

Spoiler

This is what we are dealing with.
Take special note of the cameraman too.

**I have seen a photo of a man sending a photo with his phone. The photo is of the barrel of a pistol... The man is pointing the gun at the phone, and viewing the picture on the screen while he takes it. Yes. The gun is pointed at his on face through the phone.

 

[Crni Vuk]

We went insane as a culture.

Marylin Manson, obviously. Oh, and fluoridation in water. IT'S THE DEVIL!

 

[Carib FMJ]

Most interesting opinion. How, exactly, guns "make sure" noone tries to take one's life? I am pretty sure - as far as my opinion goes, - that it's not so.

Here's one concrete example of what i mean - the person who had a gun tried to use it, but was killed by officers; however, as it reported, two bullets barelly missed one officer's head, and i mean here that in other similar situations, we'd have such a police officer instantly killed on the spot, despite being armed himself:


Me, i am fairly sure that as soon as gun's presense on any person is discovered (or initially known) to any other person who may wish harm to the gun carrying person - that person's life is as much extra protected as it is extra threatened, since his potential opponents are not only much more likely to just eat a bullet or two and RIP, but are also much more likely to use their intellect and weapons in a much more deadly manner.

The problem can only be avoided if you carry the gun, but nobody knows you do - but then you are also losing any "protection" the gun is giving you, since they are treating you as an unarmed person who supposedly can't shoot 'em dead in a blink of an eye.

That is my opinion as of now. Please educate me if i'm wrong about something, ok?

Depends on the situation. My assailants saw the gun and still figured in their crack/meth induced blaze they could take me. The gun is the last resort. But when someone storms your house in that manner, would you take the chance? They didn't get on bended knee or back up. They kept coming forward. So they left me with no option. Sorry maybe its the liberal way to try and reason with monsters or expect them to lay down their arms as a certain Californian senator said is human nature... but I was not going to place my family at their mercy.

 

[Crni Vuk]

No one said you have to, I don't think anyone here seriously advocated for a totall bann on weapons. Just for reasonable gun laws. Laws which also help to prevent crime and actually protecting citizens. Seriously, if you feel only a shootgun in your home, right next to you ready at all times is the only way to protect you and your family? Cool with me!

But then it suddenly all becomes "da evul government!" and that is used as a boogeyman to literaly shout down every single argument. Well it is a discussion that we can not win ... it's an ideological debate at that point and not a rational one, if people can not even agree on sensible registration and regulations to prevent at least the worst kind of issues. What can you do then?

Hence why I want every US citizen full access to nuclear weapons. If we're throwing rationality out of the window, let us do it at least big time.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

But then it suddenly all becomes "da evul government!" and that is used as a boogeyman to literaly shout down every single argument.

Kind of silly considering your subtle sig banner there.
The trouble is, the government has repeatedly gone out of it's way to make every paranoid gun nut's worst prophecies come true (Waco, Ruby Ridge). When you spy on people, drive tanks through their houses, and kill their unarmed wives and kids (even if they are loonies), that kind of calcifies their point. You tend to get a lot of sympathy from people who aren't big fans of fatally shooting women holding their babies through the head.
The government is made up of jerkoffs just like the rest of us, capable of the same stupidity and incompetence, subject to all the same weaknesses and frailties of human nature if you haven't noticed yet. They just have the magic wu-wu behind them.

Jon Ronson did a good piece on Ruby Ridge way back:

 

[Crni Vuk]

I am not a Trumpsupporter. I just think he is the kind of character that fits the Enclave.

The government is made up of jerkoffs just like the rest of us, capable of the same stupidity and incompetence, subject to all the same weaknesses and frailties of human nature if you haven't noticed yet. They just have the magic wu-wu behind them.

Sure, no one is denying that.

But that is in my opinion not an argument against sensible gun regulation, as it's a thought-terminating cliché. A potentially corrupt government is not an argument against laws and regulations in general. If you say you don't want the government to have more power, due to its corruption, that is understandable, but we're not talking about the state of certain administrations here. Besides, I do not believe that this is true for every single state in the US. Or you could try to go and aboilsh the police and military with the same idea.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

But that is in my opinion not an argument against sensible gun regulation

It wasn't an argument against sensible gun regulation, so I don't know about the rest of that noise. I'm pointing out that when some conspiracy-theorist gun-nut says '"da evul government!" is watching me and is coming to kill us kids.' and it actually happens, the government obliges and confirms all their worst conspiracies. Without a Ruby Ridge or Waco there is no Alex Jones-ey zeitgeist today.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

And what exactly could your old faithful do to such an organization besides providing you reassurance? I'm genuinely wondering. If it's that fucked, the strongest weapon you could get is called "leaving", methinks.

 

[MutantScalper]

All the yanks wanna do is strip naked, wrap themselves in the (federal and/or confederate) flag, sing songs about fweedumb holding a bible while shooting with a gun in the other hand while hating the gubment.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Yeah, lots of projecting and presumptions going on here. I don't own guns, live in the south, go to church, listen to country music or watch foxnews or watch NASCAR. I do dig Lynryrd Skynyrd though.

All the yanks wanna do is strip naked, wrap themselves in the (federal and/or confederate)

Lots of confusion here, the Yanks fought against the Confederacy, and the conspiracy nuts are against the feds and think they are Mephistopheles. You got it all backwards. Yanks is an insult southerners use against people like me from New England (go Pats!).
Seems like you guys try too hard to prove who can be the most insulting, which is OK, but come correct least you make yourselves look more unhinged. Stop conflating your narrow stereotype of a southern redneck with the whole population of a very large, very diverse country or you make yourself look narrow-minded and silly, frankly. Or not.


Can we just stop this strokeshow and get to the core issue here?
Gun control is a safety vs. personal freedoms argument.
The Euros here are cool with more more security - good on ya. The United States of Toby Keiths you envision are willing to give up a degree for their personal freedom. It's a multifaceted argument and there are many reasons for why this is, but nobody is going to change anyone's minds, and even if they did no change will be enacted by us jerkoffs on a video game forum. It's just partisan posturing and posing and virtue signalling and grandstanding...whatever, pay me no mind, continue on...

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yeah, it's security vs. personal freedom.

What about the right of people to not get killed by mass shooters?

All the yanks wanna do is strip naked, wrap themselves in the (federal and/or confederate) flag, sing songs about fweedumb holding a bible while shooting with a gun in the other hand while hating the gubment.

Isn't that kinda the plot of Far Cry 5 or something?

 

[Lanfear]

What about the right of people to not get killed by mass shooters?

"Anyone who cares more about not getting shot up by a lunatic than about being able to buy shotguns at WalMart can move to Canada." - Benjamin Franklin

Depends on the situation. My assailants saw the gun and still figured in their crack/meth induced blaze they could take me.

If that were actually true, then it was by sheer dumb luck that they didn't have guns of their own, or your own gun most likely wouldn't have done a thing to stop you or your family from being shot.

So it's going to be, "But what if ninja's did it!" eh? That was pointless and silly to type [IMO]. It marginalizes her need to feel confident and self-sufficient when threatened; and it omits the part about them knowingly attempting this on an armed defender*.

You don't need to be a ninja to realise that accosting somebody by surprise with a weapon in hand makes your odds of successfully robbing them much better than approaching them openly, it's common sense. And the whole point is that any feelings of confidence you may have about your personal safety on account of carrying a gun are generally illusory. Having a gun on your person won't do a thing to protect you from someone else who is robbing you with their own gun, nor really from any situation in which a potentially dangerous confrontation begins without the weapon being in your hand and ready to fire. All it will do is present you with an additional opportunity to get yourself wounded by thinking that you can draw a weapon on someone who has the advantage of you without their reacting in any way.

The reason criminals use guns is to take the easy path to what they want. They want point-n-click loot, not a 1:1 stand-up fight between equals; (and it's often 2:1). The victim needs an equalizer. Especially if they are no match for their attacker physically.

A criminal lacking a gun doesn't mean they will ever put themselves in a situation in which they're going to get into an actual fight - no criminal ever wants to get into a fight with their target, that's why you can depend on them making every effort to ensure that if their target struggles, they do so at an absolute disadvantage. But yes, criminals will certainly use a gun if given the opportunity - it presents them with a far less risky means of pacifying their target, as they can get the advantage of them without even needing to be close to them. Guns are excellent tools for a robbery, there is no doubt about that. The question is whether they are good tools for self-defense, and against someone who already has a gun trained on you, it doesn't matter whether you're carrying a gun or a banana on your person, if you reach for it you will be just as shot.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Your premise is like a two sided coin, one that reminds me of a Pat Paulson skit.



You assert both the futility & utility of having a firearm, and try to discredit the benefit one with the benefit of the other. If you really believe this, then why do police carry firearms? (Surely they see the advantage of them, and don't think it illusory.)

 

[Lanfear]

I'm sorry, where is the contradiction in what I said? Police officers don't carry guns to protect themselves in case of robbery, they carry them to pacify criminals. The idea that guns are more useful as pacification tools than as self-defense tools isn't an especially tall claim to make, and I've provided explanations for why it might be the case.

If someone was trying to rob you with a gun trained on you, would you be prepared to draw on them? You would essentially be gambling your life on the result of a shoot-out whose odds were stacked heavily against you from the word go.

 

[Crni Vuk]

"Anyone who cares more about not getting shot up by a lunatic than about being able to buy shotguns at WalMart can move to Canada." - Benjamin Franklin

 

[Deleted member 93956]

"guns aren't only for crazed killers!"
"Indeed, they are ideally and generally used as deterrents"
"Wow what kind of nonsense is that"