Guns, Love Em or Leave Em

[gyre]

We recently had another home invasion by error, apparently.
Any house may be mistaken for a drug house, or just hit by error.
It has happened to art studio houses here.

In this case, as usual, they stayed and raped, robbed, beat and/or shot all residents.
And stole their dog.

Artsy burner homes may be unusually at risk for this sort of stupidity.

[Lassen Forge]

Cute. There is much less reason for city dwellers to carry guns.

JK

For the record... I live in a city, large population, nice neighborhood but high crime not 1/2 mile from here. I'm also involved in various recreational shooting sports (trap & skeet, distance rifle, offhand pistol, etc.) AND a
vet AND hunt AND have been shooting since I was about 8 (and paid for ammo with a paper route!) so that, because I live in a city, that I should be denied my RIGHT to keep and bear arms is not only offensive, but abhorrent to me. Did I mention I'm taking gunsmithing classes, which seem to be a (very sadly) dying art.

And I'd rather not answer about shooting a someone. I'll classify that (andany relevant issues) as neither confirm or deny and nned to know info. Sorry.

[gyre]

From the February newsletter from rangemaster.
I have personally complained of this type of selective pseudo-journalism.
It isn't rare, sadly.

"tackling" the killer

This helps explain why residents of urban areas favor gun control. Most crime occurs in big cities, and urbanites
are bombarded with tales of gun-facilitated crime. It happens that most defensive gun uses also
occur in these same cities, but they simply aren’t reported.

Media Bias Against Guns
John R. Lott, Jr., Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on May 25, 2004, at a Hillsdale College National
Leadership Seminar in Seattle, Washington.

People are very surprised to learn that survey data show that guns are used defensively by private
citizens in the U.S. from 1.5 to 3.4 million times a year, at least three times more frequently than guns
are used to commit crimes. A question I hear repeatedly is: “If defensive gun use occurs so often, why
haven’t I ever heard of even one story?â€

[gyre]

Background checks required for private sales at Big Reno Show.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20110201/NEWS/102010340/1321

You should look into whether it is even legal for them to sign away others' legal rights.
If so, ask the legislature to look into it.
Mention state's rights.

[gyre]

Not bragging, but I have. More than once. Probably why I don't care to own one.

JK

I can understand not wanting to shoot someone.
I'm just baffled that you might see that as inconsistent with having a gun, and being able to defend yourself.
I would expect someone experienced with weapons to feel more comfortable around them, and capable of not using them.

Are you afraid you are too comfortable?
We all have to decide if we can exercise that restraint.

Even UK allowed veterans to keep guns in the past, based on experience.

[Elderberry]

Rather than anecdotal "evidence" which is almost always illustrating the exception rather than the rule, I believe the statistics don't bear out your assertion.

Frankly I'm not sure what the discussion is trying to prove or where it is going. Frankly, I don't care how many guns you own or how big they are. I'm actually on your side. I don't see it as an all or nothing proposition, and I've heard most all of the arguments. I just don't understand why intelligent regulation should be a threat to any responsible gun enthusiast.

JK

[ygmir]

Rather than anecdotal "evidence" which is almost always illustrating the exception rather than the rule, I believe the statistics don't bear out your assertion.

Frankly I'm not sure what the discussion is trying to prove or where it is going. Frankly, I don't care how many guns you own or how big they are. I'm actually on your side. I don't see it as an all or nothing proposition, and I've heard most all of the arguments. I just don't understand why intelligent regulation should be a threat to any responsible gun enthusiast.

JK

I'd say, part of it is that "intelligent regulation", which usually consists of registration, can lead to confiscation.
And, confiscation, takes away the last line of defense, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The other thing about "regulation" is, it also restricts choice.
and, as freedom loving individuals, many folks love choices and, resent losing them.

History, is full of totalitarian takeovers, AFTER, disarming the general populace.

And, once the power to regulate, and confiscate exists, it will not go away. Fine, if it's in the hands of benevolent "leaders"........but, that same power can be misused, by miscreants in power.

I've often quoted (probably butchered):
two rules of gov.
1. don't piss off the peasants
2. if you're going to piss them off, dis-arm them first.

the only thing, at times, between average humans and a tyrannical government, is the ability to fight back, forcefully and deadly.

and, as relates to self defense, the adage:

"I'd rather be judged by 12 of my peers than carried by 6 of my friends"

somewhat applies.

also:
I'd rather have it, and not need it, than need it, and not have it.

*rant off*

[Elderberry]

Rather than anecdotal "evidence" which is almost always illustrating the exception rather than the rule, I believe the statistics don't bear out your assertion.

Frankly I'm not sure what the discussion is trying to prove or where it is going. Frankly, I don't care how many guns you own or how big they are. I'm actually on your side. I don't see it as an all or nothing proposition, and I've heard most all of the arguments. I just don't understand why intelligent regulation should be a threat to any responsible gun enthusiast.

JK

I'd say, part of it is that "intelligent regulation", which usually consists of registration, can lead to confiscation.
And, confiscation, takes away the last line of defense, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The other thing about "regulation" is, it also restricts choice.
and, as freedom loving individuals, many folks love choices and, resent losing them.

History, is full of totalitarian takeovers, AFTER, disarming the general populace.

And, once the power to regulate, and confiscate exists, it will not go away. Fine, if it's in the hands of benevolent "leaders"........but, that same power can be misused, by miscreants in power.

I've often quoted (probably butchered):
two rules of gov.
1. don't piss off the peasants
2. if you're going to piss them off, dis-arm them first.

the only thing, at times, between average humans and a tyrannical government, is the ability to fight back, forcefully and deadly.

and, as relates to self defense, the adage:

"I'd rather be judged by 12 of my peers than carried by 6 of my friends"

somewhat applies.

also:
I'd rather have it, and not need it, than need it, and not have it.

*rant off*

Like I said, I don't understand the paranoia. This isn't Egypt. Never will be. Nobody is trying to take your guns away. You've got the NRA to make sure that won't happen.

JK

[gyre]

Which assertion?


We certainly don't have anything resembling fair or intelligent regulations here.

Look at how many years self defense by the poor led directly to prison time, or an unsolved "crime".
And still in california.

Even when it is prohibited, people want to live.

[Elderberry]

Which assertion?


We certainly don't have anything resembling fair or intelligent regulations here.

Look at how many years self defense by the poor led directly to prison time, or an unsolved "crime".
And still in california.

Even when it is prohibited, people want to live.

OK (and I'm being serious here) if you were writing the regulations, what would you consider fair and intelligent?

Oh, and please, in addition to one major thought per post, can you please just post the executive summary with a link to further reading? That was one looong post. CSS could BBEdit from this request as well.

JK

[gyre]

Like I said, I don't understand the paranoia. This isn't Egypt. Never will be.

JK

I could take you through enough rule changes to make it clear to you, but that is just cruel.

Some call it bureau of arbitrary technical findings, due to directly contradictory rulings and so on.

Already enough that I am disarmed just by visiting certain states.

How about pleading guilty to a minor charge twenty years ago to end it, and now being permanently stripped of self defense rights because of the new ruling, that uses any possible connection to a possible domestic issue to disarm you.

No recourse.

These new restrictions come out every month.

Not imaginary.

[Elderberry]

Like I said, I don't understand the paranoia. This isn't Egypt. Never will be.

JK

I could take you through enough rule changes to make it clear to you, but that is just cruel.

Some call it bureau of arbitrary technical findings, due to directly contradictory rulings and so on.

Already enough that I am disarmed just by visiting certain states.

How about pleading guilty to a minor charge twenty years ago to end it, and now being permanently stripped of self defense rights because of the new ruling, that uses any possible connection to a possible domestic issue to disarm you.

No recourse.

These new restrictions come out every month.

Not imaginary.

Maybe it's the wine, but that makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

So you had something happen to you several years ago that would now prevent you from owning a gun legally in some states and you are bitter about it?

If it were me, I'd just go to a state where I could buy a gun and get one. Or just ask me, I'd get one for you. What's the big deal?

Is that any different than doing drugs? It's illegal too, but hey, if I want to party, I party.

JK

[gyre]

Not me, but the domestic incident rule prevents you passing the background check without proving anything you were ever involved in, wasn't domestic.
Retroactive punishment, long after you can do anything about it.
This has happened to many people, including cops.
Whether this makes it illegal to own is uncertain, but no carry without the universal check, or new purchase.

There is already a huge underclass of people that must carry illegally, even though they would prefer to follow law.
Growing with every new rule.

And, no, it doesn't make sense.

[gyre]

OK (and I'm being serious here) if you were writing the regulations, what would you consider fair and intelligent?

Oh, and please, in addition to one major thought per post, can you please just post the executive summary with a link to further reading? That was one looong post. CSS could BBEdit from this request as well.

JK

I try to do that, but links often disappear, and I thought that was relevant enough to post.
It didn't format well, so ended up longer than it should have.

My rules?
That's kind of a tall order, but stripping 98% of the confusing and unnecessary rules would be a start.
And not having a body that can rewrite the law on a whim, would be a start.

A relatively simple area, but that has not gone away, is the American Gun Company Protection Act, also called the assault rifle ban (which banned not one single assault rifle).
To build certain imported rifles, I have to change them from selectable to single fire.
Stupid, but okay.
But then I have to replace an arbitrary number of functional parts with usa copies, usually inferior and costly.
Possible on an AK, hopeless on certain rifles.

But wait, the kit I have (with a barrel) can no longer be imported.
They must be almost totally destroyed now, before importation.
Making sense yet?

And that is one of the simpler areas of rules.


There is a lot of paranoia, but remembering that the waco investigation was about legally purchased rifles...., and the ruby ridge murders and coverup resulted in promotions for all responsible....not to forget that kansas city was a response to that investigation of legal purchases...
kind of understandable, even without the radical right rumour mill.
Interesting that part of the investigation into waco was about the utility of 50 calibre weapons, and their assault proved how effective they were to have, and possibly spurred the military's widespread adoption of the same, and successful use.

The government isn't doing a lot to calm fears, under any administration.

[gyre]

So you had something happen to you several years ago that would now prevent you from owning a gun legally in some states and you are bitter about it?

If it were me, I'd just go to a state where I could buy a gun and get one. Or just ask me, I'd get one for you. What's the big deal?

Is that any different than doing drugs? It's illegal too, but hey, if I want to party, I party.

JK

Actually a reference to the different self defense rules in some states, california, oregon, washington, new york, illinois in particular.
We all did something, apparently.

[gyre]

Is that any different than doing drugs? It's illegal too, but hey, if I want to party, I party.

JK

Penalties can actually be more severe.
And importantly, most drugs could be eaten pretty quickly.
Six pounds of steel can be frightfully dry.

[Lassen Forge]

Punishment of the masses for the crimes of a few?

Added to glorified media hype about firearms to keep people glued to their idiot boxes to sell advertising minutes.

And the fear of the ruling elite that they would otherwise be held responsible for their destruction and fracturing of the rights you and I have, er, had, to coalesce their grip on power to further subjugate the masses.

That's what we did.

It's funny - you talk to most urban dwellers, and they absolutely fear guns in anyone but the police's hands. What created that fear? See above.

Between Hollywood's Horseshit Hype that only bad people have guns, and that the police are there to protect you, both notoriously and dangerously false, but spoon fed to the hypnotized sheeple, en-masse since the 1970's, perhaps earlier, on a nonstop basis, have created this not just complacency, but desire, to give up all your rights and freedoms for a supposed and so-called security.

A security that does not exist. The Police are there to protect the public INFRASTRUCTURE , not the citizenry. People who watch TV think cops are your public servants. WRONG. They're the Municipalitie's and/or state's servants.

Wrong? Not really - they enforce the laws to generate revenue for the government. Sure, they want to stop crime - but that's to keep the tax base - residents, businesses, etc. - from leaving.

Of course, when you have an armed populace, the incidence of crime collapses as well - many studies to prove this out. But then the municiplaities find they no longer have *control* over their populace - that their self important need of power isn't necessary.

When was the last time you saw - on TV or a Movie - where an armed citizen saved the day? Not a Bruce Willis cop character or a Sarah Conner Sci-fi thing or a cop giving a "sheepizen" their back up gun to bing in the bad guy, but an average josephine or joe (Mr Smith) , grabbing their well worn firearm, and saving the day, defeating the bad guys, promoting this American liberty that has all but been subjugated by those who want to have power over you - either to gevern your bodies or your minds?

Something to think about, my fellow subjugated citizens.

[ygmir]

Rather than anecdotal "evidence" which is almost always illustrating the exception rather than the rule, I believe the statistics don't bear out your assertion.

Frankly I'm not sure what the discussion is trying to prove or where it is going. Frankly, I don't care how many guns you own or how big they are. I'm actually on your side. I don't see it as an all or nothing proposition, and I've heard most all of the arguments. I just don't understand why intelligent regulation should be a threat to any responsible gun enthusiast.

JK

I'd say, part of it is that "intelligent regulation", which usually consists of registration, can lead to confiscation.
And, confiscation, takes away the last line of defense, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The other thing about "regulation" is, it also restricts choice.
and, as freedom loving individuals, many folks love choices and, resent losing them.

History, is full of totalitarian takeovers, AFTER, disarming the general populace.

And, once the power to regulate, and confiscate exists, it will not go away. Fine, if it's in the hands of benevolent "leaders"........but, that same power can be misused, by miscreants in power.

I've often quoted (probably butchered):
two rules of gov.
1. don't piss off the peasants
2. if you're going to piss them off, dis-arm them first.

the only thing, at times, between average humans and a tyrannical government, is the ability to fight back, forcefully and deadly.

and, as relates to self defense, the adage:

"I'd rather be judged by 12 of my peers than carried by 6 of my friends"

somewhat applies.

also:
I'd rather have it, and not need it, than need it, and not have it.

*rant off*

Like I said, I don't understand the paranoia. This isn't Egypt. Never will be. Nobody is trying to take your guns away. You've got the NRA to make sure that won't happen.

JK

That, is not accurate. Yes, many factions are trying to take my guns away. gov and civil departments, both.
and, NRA is losing it's teeth.



I think also, part of it for me is the idea that if I'm wrong, no harm no foul:
Reasonable folk, allowed to keep, and even carry, weapons. A non threatening gov. Criminals kept more at bay, knowing "average Joe" may be armed and fight back.

If you (general for heavy gun control advocates) are wrong:

unarmed populace, criminals still having guns (since they don't care if it's illegal, and, it'd be impossible to take all guns out of the country) and knowing their intended victims are always unarmed.
A gov. that, if the wrong factions take over, can declare marshal law
and or repress the populace, knowing they have no chance to resist physically.

The ability to physically resist, to me, is a "last line" safety check for gov.
I know, you're going to point out that "this is not Egypt", but, given certain circumstances, or even natural disasters, it could be.

and, again, if not, no harm done.

IMHO.

[ygmir]

Punishment of the masses for the crimes of a few?

Added to glorified media hype about firearms to keep people glued to their idiot boxes to sell advertising minutes.

And the fear of the ruling elite that they would otherwise be held responsible for their destruction and fracturing of the rights you and I have, er, had, to coalesce their grip on power to further subjugate the masses.

That's what we did.

It's funny - you talk to most urban dwellers, and they absolutely fear guns in anyone but the police's hands. What created that fear? See above.

Between Hollywood's Horseshit Hype that only bad people have guns, and that the police are there to protect you, both notoriously and dangerously false, but spoon fed to the hypnotized sheeple, en-masse since the 1970's, perhaps earlier, on a nonstop basis, have created this not just complacency, but desire, to give up all your rights and freedoms for a supposed and so-called security.

A security that does not exist. The Police are there to protect the public INFRASTRUCTURE , not the citizenry. People who watch TV think cops are your public servants. WRONG. They're the Municipalitie's and/or state's servants.

Wrong? Not really - they enforce the laws to generate revenue for the government. Sure, they want to stop crime - but that's to keep the tax base - residents, businesses, etc. - from leaving.

Of course, when you have an armed populace, the incidence of crime collapses as well - many studies to prove this out. But then the municiplaities find they no longer have *control* over their populace - that their self important need of power isn't necessary.

When was the last time you saw - on TV or a Movie - where an armed citizen saved the day? Not a Bruce Willis cop character or a Sarah Conner Sci-fi thing or a cop giving a "sheepizen" their back up gun to bing in the bad guy, but an average josephine or joe (Mr Smith) , grabbing their well worn firearm, and saving the day, defeating the bad guys, promoting this American liberty that has all but been subjugated by those who want to have power over you - either to gevern your bodies or your minds?

Something to think about, my fellow subjugated citizens.

*swoon*

[Elderberry]

Is that any different than doing drugs? It's illegal too, but hey, if I want to party, I party.

JK

Penalties can actually be more severe.
And importantly, most drugs could be eaten pretty quickly.
Six pounds of steel can be frightfully dry.

And I heard that eating a bullet can be less than good for your health and longevity.

JK

[Elderberry]

Punishment of the masses for the crimes of a few?

Added to glorified media hype about firearms to keep people glued to their idiot boxes to sell advertising minutes.

And the fear of the ruling elite that they would otherwise be held responsible for their destruction and fracturing of the rights you and I have, er, had, to coalesce their grip on power to further subjugate the masses.

That's what we did.

It's funny - you talk to most urban dwellers, and they absolutely fear guns in anyone but the police's hands. What created that fear? See above.

Between Hollywood's Horseshit Hype that only bad people have guns, and that the police are there to protect you, both notoriously and dangerously false, but spoon fed to the hypnotized sheeple, en-masse since the 1970's, perhaps earlier, on a nonstop basis, have created this not just complacency, but desire, to give up all your rights and freedoms for a supposed and so-called security.

A security that does not exist. The Police are there to protect the public INFRASTRUCTURE , not the citizenry. People who watch TV think cops are your public servants. WRONG. They're the Municipalitie's and/or state's servants.

Wrong? Not really - they enforce the laws to generate revenue for the government. Sure, they want to stop crime - but that's to keep the tax base - residents, businesses, etc. - from leaving.

Of course, when you have an armed populace, the incidence of crime collapses as well - many studies to prove this out. But then the municiplaities find they no longer have *control* over their populace - that their self important need of power isn't necessary.

When was the last time you saw - on TV or a Movie - where an armed citizen saved the day? Not a Bruce Willis cop character or a Sarah Conner Sci-fi thing or a cop giving a "sheepizen" their back up gun to bing in the bad guy, but an average josephine or joe (Mr Smith) , grabbing their well worn firearm, and saving the day, defeating the bad guys, promoting this American liberty that has all but been subjugated by those who want to have power over you - either to gevern your bodies or your minds?

Something to think about, my fellow subjugated citizens.

Are you an anarchist?

JK

[Elderberry]

If it's not evident from my posts, I will say that I haven't given any research to this topic other than what I read casually. As a non-gun owner that really doesn't see any need for myself personally to own a gun, I've not had much interest in the topic.

I think some very interesting opinions/facts? were mentioned that I haven't given thought to from that point of view--like the myriad of different and constantly changing laws throughout the country and the federal govt itself, pointed out by gyre.

I think BBS had some interesting points, though marred by her inflammatory choice of rhetoric.

I think examples like Waco do not really help the cause, as those people were wacko to begin with, and I doubt that their leader nor many of his followers could have passed any sort of mental competency evaluation to begin with.

The paranoia aspect was really ratcheted up when Obama became president. This is for no logical or rational or factual reason, other than a lot of nonsensical heated rhetoric floating around the internet.

My partner has been wanting to get a gun for awhile now and ironically we probably will. He's never even fired a gun, but he's big on preparing for "the big one" here in CA. (I told him he would have to take lessons and we'd also need a gun safe to keep it in.)

I was in LA for the riots--lots of scary stuff on the news, smoke and fire all around. Still during all of that, I really never felt a need to own a weapon.

I think most of my 'problem' with so many of the arguments against gun control is that they are flavored with so much "crazy/paranoid" sounding talk that is off-putting to those that have the power to legislate. (Or just plain people that have the ear of their representatives.)

Because of this, I think lots of people are more afraid of the people advocating against gun control than they are the criminals that those supporters argue owning guns would defend against. Not a very good PR strategy.

IMHO of course.

JK

[Trishntek]

jkisha wrote:

Like I said, I don't understand the paranoia. This isn't Egypt. Never will be. Nobody is trying to take your guns away. You've got the NRA to make sure that won't happen.

I do not understand how you can say that when D.C. and Chicago recently lost their supposed authority to ban hand guns only by a Supreme Court ruling. This has probably been posted before, but evidently needs repeating.

http://www.nraila.org/obama/

[gyre]

My point about Waco was as a legitimate source of fear.
Remember - legal purchases?

Forensic analysts all conclude that that group might have never done anything on its own without provocation, and further that the way it was handled guaranteed the results.
There are many groups that are nuts that don't self destruct.
I've met some.

What's the excuse for authorities doing something that's nutzy-cuckoo stupid?
They have available all the paychologists they want.
Weren't they told not to invade en masse?

When people that are paranoid mention Waco, what can I say?
There was at least a partial coverup exposed.
Why would anyone be convinced it isn't worse than that?
We know of total and outright fraud in the ruby ridge coverup.
Paranoid people have a lot to work with.
You should hear the constant rumours.
Those are the direct source of the Obama paranoia, though the radical right spread lesser fears during republican years.
It's really good for the ammunition and gun business.

A lot of people believe this nonsense, even though the rumours spread before were usually untrue.

I've mentioned gun dealers hearing from people so paranoid they won't sell to them.
And that's a pretty high bar for some of them these days.

[Elderberry]

jkisha wrote:

Like I said, I don't understand the paranoia. This isn't Egypt. Never will be. Nobody is trying to take your guns away. You've got the NRA to make sure that won't happen.

I do not understand how you can say that when D.C. and Chicago recently lost their supposed authority to ban hand guns only by a Supreme Court ruling. This has probably been posted before, but evidently needs repeating.

http://www.nraila.org/obama/

First, the Supreme Court has nothing to do with Obama. Second, Obama is a pragmatist. Regardless of his past voting record, he will not do anything to rile up gun owners while he is president. (Though Giffords may cause him to make a speech or two about gun control.)

And, don't forget, I have admitted repeatedly in this thread that I haven't done ANY actual research on this as it has never been an area I've been interested in.

I'm just expressing thoughts and opinions based on what I read in the MSM without much fact checking. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything in this thread; and as long as I can still go into the Walmart and buy me a gun (should I decide I want one...see previous post) I don't see any reason to worry about my rights being taken away. (But I'm not a gun enthusiast with a need to own automatic weapons and heaven knows what else gun enthusiasts feel a need to covet.)

JK

[gyre]

jkisha wrote:

Like I said, I don't understand the paranoia. This isn't Egypt. Never will be. Nobody is trying to take your guns away. You've got the NRA to make sure that won't happen.

I do not understand how you can say that when D.C. and Chicago recently lost their supposed authority to ban hand guns only by a Supreme Court ruling. This has probably been posted before, but evidently needs repeating.

http://www.nraila.org/obama/

Chicago has made their intent clear to circumvent the rule of law and obstruct ownership by any means necessary.
D.C. is already doing that.
I think it cost a reporter over $2000 to jump through the hoops in D.C.

[ygmir]

If it's not evident from my posts, I will say that I haven't given any research to this topic other than what I read casually. As a non-gun owner that really doesn't see any need for myself personally to own a gun, I've not had much interest in the topic.
not real evident, since your intellect gives you the ability to sound informed. An interesting admission, though, since I've seen you "ream" people for posting without doing research........poke, poke......grin.......

I think some very interesting opinions/facts? were mentioned that I haven't given thought to from that point of view--like the myriad of different and constantly changing laws throughout the country and the federal govt itself, pointed out by gyre.

I think BBS had some interesting points, though marred by her inflammatory choice of rhetoric.

I think examples like Waco do not really help the cause, as those people were wacko to begin with, and I doubt that their leader nor many of his followers could have passed any sort of mental competency evaluation to begin with.

The paranoia aspect was really ratcheted up when Obama became president. This is for no logical or rational or factual reason, other than a lot of nonsensical heated rhetoric floating around the internet.

I'd say, a lot of that came because he's a liberal (or claimed to me then), "city guy", and, seems the "Ivory tower, academic" type, not in touch with the life of "the masses".
Not necessarily saying that's true, but, he does project this, IMHO

My partner has been wanting to get a gun for awhile now and ironically we probably will. He's never even fired a gun, but he's big on preparing for "the big one" here in CA. (I told him he would have to take lessons and we'd also need a gun safe to keep it in.)

yeah, good call on the lessons. But, a safe? is it just the two of you, and other adults in your home? If confronted with immediate need, it'll be hard to say "Hold on looters/home invaders, time out, I gotta remember this pesky combination".......


I was in LA for the riots--lots of scary stuff on the news, smoke and fire all around. Still during all of that, I really never felt a need to own a weapon.

well, yes, Pollyanna.........*teasing*, but, was it physically removed from your area? Would you have felt the same, had the riots been on your street?
There were many examples, of armed folks, protecting their property quite successfully in those riots. Without shooting anyone. But, showing they had the ability, and will, to self protect, made them not such a good target.


I think most of my 'problem' with so many of the arguments against gun control is that they are flavored with so much "crazy/paranoid" sounding talk that is off-putting to those that have the power to legislate. (Or just plain people that have the ear of their representatives.)


well, of course, they'd see it that way......they are the ones, that would be the the focus. They are the ones "we" mistrust with the power. *we meaning those that think like me*

Because of this, I think lots of people are more afraid of the people advocating against gun control than they are the criminals that those supporters argue owning guns would defend against. Not a very good PR strategy.

yeah, sort of an unending loop.
since, "we", fear them, and what they want. "They" think the police will protect "us" (all inclusive). They think the police "can" protect us.
and, have the notion that if I don't have a gun, a criminal can't get one either, or, that if it's illegal, the criminals will just turn theirs in.


IMHO of course. +1

JK

I see it as the "pendulum principle", in that, one side sees the other as going "to far", so, tries to swing "it" to far the other way, to counteract. When, the reality, is, there is a very acceptable "middle ground" for most reasonable people.
As is often the case, the "fringes" drive the argument.

[Elderberry]

My point about Waco was as a legitimate source of fear.
Remember - legal purchases?

Forensic analysts all conclude that that group might have never done anything on its own without provocation, and further that the way it was handled guaranteed the results.
There are many groups that are nuts that don't self destruct.
I've met some.

What's the excuse for authorities doing something that's nutzy-cuckoo stupid?
They have available all the paychologists they want.
Weren't they told not to invade en masse?

When people that are paranoid mention Waco, what can I say?
There was at least a partial coverup exposed.
Why would anyone be convinced it isn't worse than that?
We know of total and outright fraud in the ruby ridge coverup.
Paranoid people have a lot to work with.
You should hear the constant rumours.
Those are the direct source of the Obama paranoia, though the radical right spread lesser fears during republican years.
It's really good for the ammunition and gun business.

A lot of people believe this nonsense, even though the rumours spread before were usually untrue.

I've mentioned gun dealers hearing from people so paranoid they won't sell to them.
And that's a pretty high bar for some of them these days.

All I'm saying is that Waco is a bad example to use to further your cause. I'm certainly NOT defending it. It was terrible the way the government handled it. I doubt a situation like this will ever go down the same way ever again. (I reserve the right to change my thoughts on this should the government ever behave the same way in the future.)

From lots of the posts here it's obvious there needs to be some changes to the way guns are regulated. (Or gun laws or whatever is the "correct" way to refer to gun control according to gun owners.)

If I have any point to make, it is that gun enthusiasts need to change their rhetoric to be effective. Perception is reality, and if gun enthusiasts are viewed as 'crazies' or 'militia men' it does nothing to advance your cause.

One of the worst PR mistakes I think I've seen EVER were those demonstrations where a few guys attended and were packing those weapons. Did they have the right to do what they did? Yes. Was it appropriate? NO! Did those guys come off as nut jobs? Yes. Did it help to advance the cause for gun owners? NO!

JK

[Lassen Forge]

Are you an anarchist?

JK

Am I a WHAT??!!

I would certainly the fuck hope not.

Anarchists want to see the overthrow of government. Is it because I'm not anti-gun that you call me an anarchist? I want to see Government return to it's RIGHTFUL place - as a servant of the people. Not as the emperor over their subjects.

Also - I didn't mention Waco. I want to make that really sterling clear.

Not much else I care to say at this point.

[gyre]

The rumours about Obama are quite deliberate and carefully scripted, with a clear purpose.
I am convinced that courting a nutcase political base will bite them in the ass big time.
Far too many people don't realize they are totally full of shit.

As for the average person, they still believe the fake statistics "showing" that if you own a gun, you'll probably shoot yourself by accident within a year.
"Facts" far too ludicrous for anyone to swallow, yet people love to repeat them.
No difference between that big lie and the crazy rumours about Obama.
Real paranoia to believe any of that stuff.


Weapon training and practice is a really good idea.
Your choice or choices should depend on your intended purpose.
A handgun may not be your best choice, if you can't carry.
Long guns and handguns serve very different purposes, and function differently.
You might want to read through some of the nra files on self defense cases.
Very instructive.

And L.A...., which Big One?

By the way, L.A. pioneered modern law enforcement, ie not stopping crime, just responding after it is over.
Look at police/citizen ratios in the past.
Few cities can even respond after a crime adequately now.