One more reason to carry

[gdeangel]

<Bizarre ramblings about messages to children>

Oh, and there was me thinking that observant children might see "Perpetrate crime = Get arrested, given a fair trial, and then punished in a humane and proportional fashion"... but it seems you'd prefer them to see "Own a gun = become walking judge, jury and executioner. Wilfully kill other human beings when you think it's alright, or when you feel it's probably ok, and dole out vigilante justice at your heart's content".

Yeah, that sounds like a really good message you're proposing there... in fact, I'm amazed that academics don't try using your line of reasoning more regularly. No really, I am. Sarcastic? I don't even know what that word means.

Although I notice that, once again, the pro-gun side of the equation is resorting to the purely emotional arguments, and the hearstring tugging "think of the children" fictions.

How delightfully true to form.

DM - What you said would be nice, but it doesn't happen. The justice system is like making sausage. And the penal system is worse.

I'm not on the pro gun side here. I think that seriously this guy's life was not in danger, based on the video, and more than if the assailant was using his fists. The hammer is a red herring in the question of the use of deadly force, but you have to admit that when a jury looking at charging the victim - had he been carrying and shot the other guy (or a bystander, because yeah, lots of people who carry aren't qualified) hear the defense attorney talk about a "double claw hammer being dug into the victim's head and neck" that they are likely to say to themselves - duh, no brainer, self defense.

And what the gunslinger said about looking at the surroundings differently when you are properly trained is true. And that training doesn't need to be linked to carrying a gun, but it does had to do with training to be empowered over the environment you find yourself in. It could be martial arts. It could be carrying a stun gun. But that mental edge is what makes the difference between getting on the subway and relying on the "anonymity" being just another face, not making eye contact, absorbed in the iPod or the cell phone. Next time you get onto a subway, take note of who doesn't immediately break eye contact when you make eye contact with them.

You don't need a gun to be tough, but for a significant number, carrying a weapon makes them feel tough. It is sufficient but not necessary. I personally carry a hickory 4x4 with me when I travel in questionable environs.



I also encourage anyone who doesn't understand what I'm talking about to (1) Read the novel Shane (not the movie, which is gay), and (2) Watch the Movie Pale Rider, particularly the scene with the famous scene: 'nothing like a nice piece of hickory'.

[Snorri1234]

That scene from that movie with The Rock is fucking awesome.

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm fervently hoping that you recently became pro-gun and that the above post was a satire of semantic sophistry on the part of the anti-selfdefense lobby, or else I'm just going to despair over the future of humanity. If we thrash out your point logically, a person using a gun he is legally carrying to shoot a a gangster raping a woman is just as bad as the gangster, and the Allies in WWII were just as bad as the Nazis for "using guns to kill people being violent". So again, I sincerely hope this was satire, or else I'm going to have to seriously consider support for eugenics if this is all we get after millions of years of unaided evolution.

hehe .. still no clue at all about anything then Nipper!?

No. You still don't.

[jiminski]

hehe .. still no clue at all about anything then Nipper!?

No. You still don't.

heh, good one!

[Snorri1234]

And what the gunslinger said about looking at the surroundings differently when you are properly trained is true. And that training doesn't need to be linked to carrying a gun, but it does had to do with training to be empowered over the environment you find yourself in. It could be martial arts. It could be carrying a stun gun. But that mental edge is what makes the difference between getting on the subway and relying on the "anonymity" being just another face, not making eye contact, absorbed in the iPod or the cell phone.

Yup. That's the important thing. You need training like a cop gets to really have any use for such things, though a gun is not needed most of the time anyway then.

[comic boy]

Whats all the fuss about, gun deaths in the USA are a miserly 30,000 a year and serious firearm injuries dont even break 100,000...its no big deal !

[bedub1]

Are you telling me that no American has the bravery to do the right thing unless they have a gun!?

It almost appears that way...how many times do you hear about women screaming rape and nobody coming, or those 10 people just watching...or people hijacking a plane with a box cutter and the 200 passengers doing nothing and then crashing it into a building....(props to the heros that said 'f*ck this shit' and fought back on that one flight)....but lets think about this:

"Attacker killed by Bystander with .357"
or
"Attacker mauled by Bystander with claw hammer"

Which would you rather see? I consider mauling a guy with a hammer to be worse than shooting a guy in the face with a .357. Are you the kind of person that tortures animals, or do you put them out of their misery cleanly and nicely to cause the least amount of suffering?

IMO...the moment that guy attacked the other guy with a claw hammer, he gave up all of his rights, because he violated the other mans rights...and that includes his right to life.

The objective is to cause all actions to cease and desist immediately, and a shot to the head is the quickest way I know of, while requiring the least amount of action from a bystander. Bystanders by nature don't want to get involved. If there was a way for me to instead just easily freeze time for those 2 people, and then walk over there and pull them apart and set them aside, and then call the cops, and then we could haul them off...1 to the hospital and the other to the phsyco ward...and then reanimate them under controlled circumstances, and then help them, I'd give up my gun in a second. That would be fucking sweet. You could hunt with that and not cause any suffering to the animal, no damage to the meat I want to eat for dinner etc. What would I want a gun for anymore? I hate picking shot out of my ducks, I hate bystanders getting shot by cops...I hate cops getting shot cause they can't shoot cause there is a hostage. Who cares if there is a hostage now...just shoot them both.

Oh yeah..guns are fun to shoot too. Shooting clay pigeons with a shotgun is a blast. Much more fun that shooting a paper target. They move, fly through the air...it's sweet. And shooting a deck of cards at 400 feet with a nice deer rifle is fun too. Plastic milk jugs full of water just explode in a shower.

I like guns. I find them very useful tools. Like any tool they can be abused. It's not the tools fault though. I don't carry one, as I don't have a concealed weapons permit, and I haven't had a need for one yet. When I'm older and wiser and can afford a nice small concealable comfortable pistol I might get one and a concealed weapons permit. Until then I follow the rules and laws concerning my possession of one. It's not ME that is doing what I'm supposed to that is the problem, it's the people that are misusing them.

(BTW I want my time stopping device to have recoil and go boom cause it's cool and exciting when they do. I was at the shooting range a long long time ago and some guy had 2 chinese girls there...they were foreign exchange students and wanted to see what it was like. They all had the ear muphs, and shooting glasses, and were going slow and cautious. He was providing them lots of training and education for safety. Those girls loved it...were all happy and jumping and cheering...they were damn good shots too. There isn't anything inherently evil or wrong with that, and I do not believe you have the right to deny them that experience.)

EDIT:

And what the gunslinger said about looking at the surroundings differently when you are properly trained is true. And that training doesn't need to be linked to carrying a gun, but it does had to do with training to be empowered over the environment you find yourself in. It could be martial arts. It could be carrying a stun gun. But that mental edge is what makes the difference between getting on the subway and relying on the "anonymity" being just another face, not making eye contact, absorbed in the iPod or the cell phone.

Yup. That's the important thing. You need training like a cop gets to really have any use for such things, though a gun is not needed most of the time anyway then.

I couldn't agree more.

EDIT 2:

Whats all the fuss about, gun deaths in the USA are a miserly 30,000 a year and serious firearm injuries dont even break 100,000...its no big deal !

Lol...I love hearing about the guy that shoots himself cause he's trying to clean his gun and it goes off. What an idiot. He needs education.

[Frop]

Whats all the fuss about, gun deaths in the USA are a miserly 30,000 a year and serious firearm injuries dont even break 100,000...its no big deal !

You're right - mountains, mole hills, you name it. I googled a bit and only found a rather old study, but I guess it illustrates the utter insignificance.

The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths.

[bedub1]

Whats all the fuss about, gun deaths in the USA are a miserly 30,000 a year and serious firearm injuries dont even break 100,000...its no big deal !

You're right - mountains, mole hills, you name it. I googled a bit and only found a rather old study, but I guess it illustrates the utter insignificance.

The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths.

Thats why we are so smart and successfull...the stupid ones weed themselves out

[comic boy]

Whats all the fuss about, gun deaths in the USA are a miserly 30,000 a year and serious firearm injuries dont even break 100,000...its no big deal !

You're right - mountains, mole hills, you name it. I googled a bit and only found a rather old study, but I guess it illustrates the utter insignificance.

The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths.

Ah but if they didnt carry guns the death rate would be higher apparently.....yes the logic of the shoot em up brigade escapes me as well

[black elk speaks]

you all can say what ever you want to about guns. whether people have them or not, whatever. that fucker with the hammer, he didn't need a gun to be a murderous son of a bitch. That study you posted there Frop, is bull shit. it talked about gun related deaths in countries where guns are illegal. of course the gun related deaths are going to be lower. If you want to find a correlation then you need to compare gun related deaths with deaths overall. take out the presence of accidental (hunting or gun cleaning) deaths and factor in intended murders. then you might have a study that was worth more than shit paper. I carry a gun. if i saw that wacko hammering away on a dude on the subway, I would have shot him in the ass and let the police deal with him. no court in the land would have convicted me.

[Spuzzell]

you all can say what ever you want to about guns. whether people have them or not, whatever. that fucker with the hammer, he didn't need a gun to be a murderous son of a bitch. That study you posted there Frop, is bull shit. it talked about gun related deaths in countries where guns are illegal. of course the gun related deaths are going to be lower. If you want to find a correlation then you need to compare gun related deaths with deaths overall. take out the presence of accidental (hunting or gun cleaning) deaths and factor in intended murders. then you might have a study that was worth more than shit paper. I carry a gun. if i saw that wacko hammering away on a dude on the subway, I would have shot him in the ass and let the police deal with him. no court in the land would have convicted me.

I honestly don't understand you. "Of course gun related deaths are lower where guns are illegal" and yet you still want guns legally available? What the hell kind of moron logic is that?

You're all just weird. I don't know what horrific incident will have to happen before the US attitude to lethal weapons grows up.. for us in the UK it was a massacre in a school in Scotland, but you seem to be having those every few months without reaching the sane conclusion.

[Matroshka]

Deaths related to car accidents are higher than gun related deaths. When will us stupid Americans realize that cars need to be outlawed.

[black elk speaks]

you all can say what ever you want to about guns. whether people have them or not, whatever. that fucker with the hammer, he didn't need a gun to be a murderous son of a bitch. That study you posted there Frop, is bull shit. it talked about gun related deaths in countries where guns are illegal. of course the gun related deaths are going to be lower. If you want to find a correlation then you need to compare gun related deaths with deaths overall. take out the presence of accidental (hunting or gun cleaning) deaths and factor in intended murders. then you might have a study that was worth more than shit paper. I carry a gun. if i saw that wacko hammering away on a dude on the subway, I would have shot him in the ass and let the police deal with him. no court in the land would have convicted me.

I honestly don't understand you. "Of course gun related deaths are lower where guns are illegal" and yet you still want guns legally available? What the hell kind of moron logic is that?

You're all just weird. I don't know what horrific incident will have to happen before the US attitude to lethal weapons grows up.. for us in the UK it was a massacre in a school in Scotland, but you seem to be having those every few months without reaching the sane conclusion.

what I am asking is how do murder rates compare. are stabbings higher because there are no guns? read my post you moron. its people that kill people, not the weapons. take away my gun, but if I want you to die, I will find a way to kill you with some other method.

[comic boy]

Black Elk is right, if a kid wants to kill a couple of dozen schoolmates and hasnt got access to a gun then he will soon find another solution.....happens all over the World !

[black elk speaks]

Black Elk is right, if a kid wants to kill a couple of dozen schoolmates and hasnt got access to a gun then he will soon find another solution.....happens all over the World !

yeah, because no one ever straps a bomb to their belly and hangs out in the middle of a crowded area.

I assume that you are talking about columbine style school violence. Sure, those kids could bring archery equipment to school if they wanted. they also could have rigged school buses to explode, poisoned school lunch, what have you. the problem is not how those kids executed mass murder, it is THAT they executed mass murder.

The title of this thread it adequately depicting an idea that I have always thought. if more responsible people carried guns, then crimes, such as the public attack of this man on the train, would have more likely ended with the assailant in custody. The problem is that liberal morons would make it so that the ass hole with the hammer could turn around and file a civil suit against the trigger man.

I wonder too how making guns illegal allows for the people of your citizenry able to come up against an invading force should the need arise. How does making guns illegal allow for people to hunt, especially if it is a means for sustenance for them. The bottom line is, people like you do not have the right, at least in my country, to tell people like me that I cannot have a gun for what ever reason i deem fit.

[Snorri1234]

Black Elk is right, if a kid wants to kill a couple of dozen schoolmates and hasnt got access to a gun then he will soon find another solution.....happens all over the World !

yeah, because no one ever straps a bomb to their belly and hangs out in the middle of a crowded area.

Well not in my country...

[black elk speaks]

Black Elk is right, if a kid wants to kill a couple of dozen schoolmates and hasnt got access to a gun then he will soon find another solution.....happens all over the World !

yeah, because no one ever straps a bomb to their belly and hangs out in the middle of a crowded area.

Well not in my country...

give it time. radical islamism can change the world, one detonation at a time.

[Skittles!]

Black Elk is right, if a kid wants to kill a couple of dozen schoolmates and hasnt got access to a gun then he will soon find another solution.....happens all over the World !

yeah, because no one ever straps a bomb to their belly and hangs out in the middle of a crowded area.

Well not in my country...

give it time. radical islamism can change the world, one detonation at a time.

Not here either.

But I guess it helps living on an island, y'know.. Also having tight border patrols, also helps.

[Spuzzell]

Black Elk is right, if a kid wants to kill a couple of dozen schoolmates and hasnt got access to a gun then he will soon find another solution.....happens all over the World !

yeah, because no one ever straps a bomb to their belly and hangs out in the middle of a crowded area.

I assume that you are talking about columbine style school violence. Sure, those kids could bring archery equipment to school if they wanted. they also could have rigged school buses to explode, poisoned school lunch, what have you. the problem is not how those kids executed mass murder, it is THAT they executed mass murder.

The title of this thread it adequately depicting an idea that I have always thought. if more responsible people carried guns, then crimes, such as the public attack of this man on the train, would have more likely ended with the assailant in custody. The problem is that liberal morons would make it so that the ass hole with the hammer could turn around and file a civil suit against the trigger man.

I wonder too how making guns illegal allows for the people of your citizenry able to come up against an invading force should the need arise. How does making guns illegal allow for people to hunt, especially if it is a means for sustenance for them. The bottom line is, people like you do not have the right, at least in my country, to tell people like me that I cannot have a gun for what ever reason i deem fit.

You're so deluded. How many school massacres do you hear about in England? None. And why? Because it's so hard to get hold of guns. If guns are easy to get hold of, then people can easily use them, it's just so simple.

The problem in the US is that guns are so prevalent that arguments that in other countries would result in a fight or someone calling the police instead end in gunshots and death. You think other countries don't have guns? Of course we do, but we make as damn sure as we can that only those with a genuine need and of a right state of mind can have them.

Like I said many many posts ago, I have a firearms license and went through an EXHAUSTIVE assessment by the authorities to ensure I wouldn't, for example, use my rifle to kill someone trying to mug me. In some US states, you can walk into a SUPERMARKET and come out with an automatic weapon or a pistol, which you can then carry around without any permit or background checks whatsoever. How is that not insane?

Oh, and I'm amazed it's taken this long for someone to come up with the "we need to be armed to resist invasion/oppresion!" crap.

Right, sure. In the hugely likely event of Canada invading the States, or you somehow ending up with a leader even you think is a bit mental, just how much use do you think you and your handgun is going to be against an organised army? Seriously. It's pathetic.

There's no justification for the average person to have any sort of lethal weapon, and ABSOLUTELY no justification for anyone not involved in law enforcement to own a handgun, a gun whose only possible use is in inflicting harm on others.

*edit* Oh, and I'm about as far from liberal as it's possible to be. In fact, if I was liberal, I'd probably recognise your right to be an ass. As I am, I'm just glad there's a big ocean between me and a country where people like you can walk around with guns just to make themselves feel big.

[pimpdave]

Here's my big question...

How would you Europeans react if you were walking through the hood and heard the gunfire start spitting?

Would you freak out? Most middle Americans would. I certainly did the first time. But you learn to recognize the caliber of the weapons involved, and whether or not it's moving towards you. I still get a bit worried when I hear an automatic, or the fire getting spat out of a moving vehicle. Cause otherwise I can usually avoid it easily. But when it's a drive by, or a chopper, all bets are off.

Are we American city boys just tougher than the majority of Europeans (or Americans from areas without this kind of strife)? And by that, I mean those of us American city boys that DON'T carry a heater, the ones be strapped be pussy, for real.

[black elk speaks]

Black Elk is right, if a kid wants to kill a couple of dozen schoolmates and hasnt got access to a gun then he will soon find another solution.....happens all over the World !

yeah, because no one ever straps a bomb to their belly and hangs out in the middle of a crowded area.

I assume that you are talking about columbine style school violence. Sure, those kids could bring archery equipment to school if they wanted. they also could have rigged school buses to explode, poisoned school lunch, what have you. the problem is not how those kids executed mass murder, it is THAT they executed mass murder.

The title of this thread it adequately depicting an idea that I have always thought. if more responsible people carried guns, then crimes, such as the public attack of this man on the train, would have more likely ended with the assailant in custody. The problem is that liberal morons would make it so that the ass hole with the hammer could turn around and file a civil suit against the trigger man.

I wonder too how making guns illegal allows for the people of your citizenry able to come up against an invading force should the need arise. How does making guns illegal allow for people to hunt, especially if it is a means for sustenance for them. The bottom line is, people like you do not have the right, at least in my country, to tell people like me that I cannot have a gun for what ever reason i deem fit.

You're so deluded. How many school massacres do you hear about in England? None. And why? Because it's so hard to get hold of guns. If guns are easy to get hold of, then people can easily use them, it's just so simple.

The problem in the US is that guns are so prevalent that arguments that in other countries would result in a fight or someone calling the police instead end in gunshots and death. You think other countries don't have guns? Of course we do, but we make as damn sure as we can that only those with a genuine need and of a right state of mind can have them.

Like I said many many posts ago, I have a firearms license and went through an EXHAUSTIVE assessment by the authorities to ensure I wouldn't, for example, use my rifle to kill someone trying to mug me. In some US states, you can walk into a SUPERMARKET and come out with an automatic weapon or a pistol, which you can then carry around without any permit or background checks whatsoever. How is that not insane?

Oh, and I'm amazed it's taken this long for someone to come up with the "we need to be armed to resist invasion/oppresion!" crap.

Right, sure. In the hugely likely event of Canada invading the States, or you somehow ending up with a leader even you think is a bit mental, just how much use do you think you and your handgun is going to be against an organised army? Seriously. It's pathetic.

There's no justification for the average person to have any sort of lethal weapon, and ABSOLUTELY no justification for anyone not involved in law enforcement to own a handgun, a gun whose only possible use is in inflicting harm on others.

*edit* Oh, and I'm about as far from liberal as it's possible to be. In fact, if I was liberal, I'd probably recognise your right to be an ass. As I am, I'm just glad there's a big ocean between me and a country where people like you can walk around with guns just to make themselves feel big.

this is why I love being an American. No fucking bureaucrat is going to stand in the way of some murderous thug and my safety. Its all fine and dandy until you have some raging lunatic with a claw hammer beating your ass into a grease spot on the subway. As a human being, I reserve the right to defend myself. you can go ahead and make guns illegal, in fact, illegal guns are illegal here in the states, and criminals are barred from accessing them. but if you make guns illegal, guess what, only criminals would have them, and they would get them, rest assured.

Hand guns (at least the one that I own and carry) is for the protection and defense of my family and my self. stay over there, your lefty ideas about peoples rights to defend themselves have no place in the states.

[Snorri1234]

Here's my big question...

How would you Europeans react if you were walking through the hood and heard the gunfire start spitting?

Would you freak out? Most middle Americans would. I certainly did the first time. But you learn to recognize the caliber of the weapons involved, and whether or not it's moving towards you. I still get a bit worried when I hear an automatic, or the fire getting spat out of a moving vehicle. Cause otherwise I can usually avoid it easily. But when it's a drive by, or a chopper, all bets are off.

Are we American city boys just tougher than the majority of Europeans (or Americans from areas without this kind of strife)? And by that, I mean those of us American city boys that DON'T carry a heater, the ones be strapped be pussy, for real.

Yeah I'd be pretty freaked out, but that's because I have never heard gunfire over here. I have walked plenty of dark nights through Amsterdam, but gunfire? Nope.

[black elk speaks]

Here's my big question...

How would you Europeans react if you were walking through the hood and heard the gunfire start spitting?

Would you freak out? Most middle Americans would. I certainly did the first time. But you learn to recognize the caliber of the weapons involved, and whether or not it's moving towards you. I still get a bit worried when I hear an automatic, or the fire getting spat out of a moving vehicle. Cause otherwise I can usually avoid it easily. But when it's a drive by, or a chopper, all bets are off.

Are we American city boys just tougher than the majority of Europeans (or Americans from areas without this kind of strife)? And by that, I mean those of us American city boys that DON'T carry a heater, the ones be strapped be pussy, for real.

Yeah I'd be pretty freaked out, but that's because I have never heard gunfire over here. I have walked plenty of dark nights through Amsterdam, but gunfire? Nope.

"Amsterdam is the second most criminal town in the Netherlands. Nonetheless, the capital is the most attractive city in the Netherlands to live in, according to the Atlas for Municipalities presented earlier last Thursday."

"Much crime in Amsterdam is of a different nature, though. In recent years, a revenge-war amongst top criminals has resulted in a number of assassinations — with hits often taking place in public."

- source http://www.dutchamsterdam.nl/162-amsterdam-livability

Maybe those people are being stabbed?

[Spuzzell]

Here's my big question...

How would you Europeans react if you were walking through the hood and heard the gunfire start spitting?

Would you freak out? Most middle Americans would. I certainly did the first time. But you learn to recognize the caliber of the weapons involved, and whether or not it's moving towards you. I still get a bit worried when I hear an automatic, or the fire getting spat out of a moving vehicle. Cause otherwise I can usually avoid it easily. But when it's a drive by, or a chopper, all bets are off.

Are we American city boys just tougher than the majority of Europeans (or Americans from areas without this kind of strife)? And by that, I mean those of us American city boys that DON'T carry a heater, the ones be strapped be pussy, for real.

Yeah I'd be pretty freaked out, but that's because I have never heard gunfire over here. I have walked plenty of dark nights through Amsterdam, but gunfire? Nope.

"Amsterdam is the second most criminal town in the Netherlands. Nonetheless, the capital is the most attractive city in the Netherlands to live in, according to the Atlas for Municipalities presented earlier last Thursday."

"Much crime in Amsterdam is of a different nature, though. In recent years, a revenge-war amongst top criminals has resulted in a number of assassinations — with hits often taking place in public."

- source http://www.dutchamsterdam.nl/162-amsterdam-livability

Maybe those people are being stabbed?

Oh, for gods sake.

The solution to some people having guns isn't to arm everybody else. That's like saying "oh shit, these three people have Ebola. Quick, infect everybody else so they cant hurt anyone."