im an anti w/ questions

[James Castilla]

hello to all...i came across this site while doing research on the net. i must say that this forum is cleaner and much more clear-minded than most other forums out there.
on the other side of the coin though, i dont like guns. i see them as having no constructive value whatsoever. objectively speaking, they are a means to get a bullet from point a to point b, but they were originally designed for killing things. i know that many of you here have killed more paper targets/ watermelons/ bowling pins/ old household appliances than living things, and see that as just as a hobby or honing of a skill. however, the skill is nothing less than being a more efficient killer.
my view on hunting is the same as my view on somone that grows vegetables in a home garden rather than going to a grocery store. you do it because its cheaper sometimes, its fresherand tastes better, and theres some feeling of accomplishment. but why own guns like the m16 and tommygun? you cant hunt with those.
also, the bill of rights says what it says...but is everyone out there really so paranoid that the government is going to come along one day, become a corrupt dictatorship, and kill everyone who opposes it? in addition, what are the chances of a foreign invasion (much less one that our military couldn't defend against on its own)? as proven on 9-11 by the passengers on board the plane that crashed in pennsylvania, you don't need a gun on airplanes. besides, what would happen to an airliner at 35000 feet if a bullet went through the side of the passenger compartment? stuff like handguns and gun safety ill talk about later since everyone on this forum sounds as though they are sane enough, smart enough, and mature enough to handle such things accordingly.
okay, enough questions for now. what i will say about this forum, however, is the diversity of its members. for example, people like skunkabilly, microbalrog, runt_of_the_litter (i didnt expect to find any women here), etc. i was expecting to only find a bunch of rednecks, ex-military/ military, and guys like you see in the movie tremors.
i decided to post my queries here since this seemed like the best place to ask and get an intelligent response.

-best wishes, james

 

[Nightcrawler]

Oh, where to start.

You're looking at it the wrong way, I think. Why would anyone want an M16 rifle or a Thompson submachine gun? Why NOT? You can kill someone just as dead with a perfectly docile looking hunting rifle, or a .22. The differences between a self-loading hunting rifle and a select fire military rifle are few, and are minor mechanical differences. If you're okay with people having guns, it's rather silly, in my opinion, to go worrying about minor technical differences such as that, because in the end they do the same thing.

A scary looking rifle with a big magazine is FUN. Fun to shoot, fun to have. That's a big reason I own them. The other reason is simply that I can.

Why does anyone want a Porsche? It's a statistical fact that owning a sports car will make you more likely to get into a wreck. Your insurance is higher, and the cars cost more. Nobody really NEEDS a sports car, and putting speed limiters in all civilian owned cars would make it difficult for criminals to outrun the police, right?

So let's ban sports cars!

See where I'm going with this? Instead of asking why anyone would want an M16, try asking this: is there any reason an adult who lacks a criminal record or serious mental disability SHOULDN'T be able to own one? Should we really punish people because they have the potential to commit a crime? If so, I'll see you in jail!

People have rights. Don't believe in the 2nd Ammendment? Okay, fine. Show me where in the Constitution the federal government is given the power to regulate what kind of firearms I can own? If you want to get technical (and by technical I mean taking into account the 9th and 10th Ammendments) the Federal Government has no such power.

You know how the Klu Kux Klan stages big marches and protests? Disgusting, isn't it? They're vile people, scum of the Earth, if you ask me. But they have every right to march, and rally, and print flyers, and that right is PROTECTED by (NOT granted by) the 1st Ammendment. You can't deny someone rights simply because you disagree with it, or don't like the people involved. (Well you can, but then you join the ranks of people like Hitler.)

as proven on 9-11 by the passengers on board the plane that crashed in pennsylvania, you don't need a gun on airplanes.

How do you figure? If Todd Beamer had had a .357, he simply could've shot each of the hijackers, instead of having to charge them and fight them hand to hand, allowing them to lock themselves in the cockpit and crash the airplane. When faced with a threat, having a gun is ALWAYS preferable to hand to hand combat.

besides, what would happen to an airliner at 35000 feet if a bullet went through the side of the passenger compartment?

A small hole, any where from .22 to .45" in diamter would be punctured in the hull, and the oxygen masks would drop due to the depressurization. An airliner is not a space capsule. You don't get explosive decompression at 35,000 feet. Remember, people walk to the top of mountains that are almost 30,000 feet in the air. And if, for instance, the armed Air Marshals are using frangible ammunition, the chance of the bullet passing through hull of the aircraft and damaging something vital is minimized. Is there still a risk? Of course. But what's the alternative? September 11th is the alternative.

Hope that helps some. Others will be along. Thank you for keeping an open mind, at least, and you've certainly come to the right place for the answers to your questions.

 

[Cliff]

Hi James,
I'm sure each and everyone of your questions will be answered,but I first want to welcome you to The Highroad. Yep,folks involved in the shooting sports are a diverse group. We are white,black,asian,latino,male,female,stright,gay. Our politics vary, but we all enjoy shooting for the sheer joy of it. Keep those questions coming.Keep this in mind,Education is like prayer,it changes things. Hopefully as you are presented with facts,and enter into discussion with our members,your outlook on the issue will change.

 

[Nightcrawler]

A visual aid; re: minor technical differences

Can you spot the assault rifle?

The Rifle on top is a Ruger Mini-30, a semi-automatic sporting rifle with a 5-round detachable box magazine.

The Rifle on the bottom is a Ruger AC556F, a select fire (fires semiauto or fully automatic) rifle, with a folding stock and pistol grip.

They're both the same design. How do they differ? Well, the rifle on top is chambered for the 7.62x39mm round, and the one on the bottom is in .223 Remington, but that's a moot point. The one on the bottom has a 30 round magazine, though you could easily replace it with a 5-round one. The one on the top has a politically correct stock, though you could swap it out with a folding one with nothing more complicated than a screwdriver. The rifle on the bottom has a shorter barrel. And, of course, the rifle on the bottom can fire fully automatic, essentially meaning the bullets come out a bit faster than they would if you pulled the trigger as fast as you can.

The rifle on the bottom is illegal (sort of...the laws are complicated; needless to say, you can't just walk into a store in buy one), not just because it fires full auto. Having a barrel shorter than 16" is a violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. You can own a 30-round magazine, but it has to be manufactured before September 1994, as per the "assault weapons ban". Installing a folding stock on a "post-ban" rifle turns you into an instant felon, also per the 1994 "assault weapons ban".

The rifle on top? You can buy it at Wal-Mart. Put a folding stock, a flash-hider, and a 30-round magazine on the rifle on top, and you have what's considered an "assault weapon". You've also just committed a felony.

As I said, minor technical differences. Whether or not you have a flash-hider on your barrel, as opposed to a muzzle brake, can determine whether or not the federal government can put you in jail. It's a piece of steel.

 

[swingset]

I can't add much to that, but let me remind you that the gun cannot be uninvented. It will be here and in people's hands, forever. That's a fact, whether it makes your skin crawl or brings a warm smile to your face.

So, the question is, just like with drugs - do you teach responsibility, educate, practice safety and let people make their own choice to use guns responsibly.....

Or do you let your irrational side take hold and ban them, making the only people with arms people who already disregard the law? When people with no respect for life outgun you, you have a very scary society. The balance is important, even if you yourself choose not to own or use a firearm.

Simply put, you have the choice to submit to crime or to defend yourself from it. However, when you prescribe your beliefs onto me, the unwilling, you have violated my basic human right to self defense if you believe I should own no arms.

Think about this carefully, as it's as clear and simple as I have laid it out.

 

[Pendragon]

Hello James,

Welcome to the High Road. I hope you will stick around for a while. We do not get many like you around here.

First, an introduction. Then I will answer your questions - although bear in mind, some people have written whole books about only one or two of your questions.

I am 32, married 10 years, 1 child. I own 1 hand gun right now but only because I had to sell several others to make ends meet here in California. We are currently considering movint to Texas or Florida. A large part of our move decision is financial, but our destinations were chosen because they are "gun friendly" and we can get a CCW license and own military pattern rifles. I work in the computer support field.

First, an opener. There are two prongs to ht pro gun position. Your first question addresses the practical argument of "Why do you need...?". We have answers for these kinds of questions, but please be patient if some here grow short with you for asking them. Most here are stauch individual rights supporters and will tell you that rights do not require a "need" - only a want and a will.

The reason we do not like those questions is because it brings the argument to an area we consider secondary. Many or most here believe that we have a basic, pre-existing, fundamental human right to keep and bear arms. We do not believe it is anyones business to tell us what arms to own (although the line varies widely from machineguns to missiles to nuclear weapons - but thats mostly philosophy). We prefer to argue principle: "Why do you think we need to show need to own a weapon, and by what mechanism or authority do you intend to enforce this idea upon us?

but why own guns like the m16 and tommygun? you cant hunt with those.

"Sporting Purpose" is not a pre-requisite in our eyes. These are weapons of war and should be available to the free citizen because ultimately, the security of the country falls to him/her.

From a pragmatic point of view, an AR-15 (semi-auto version of the M16) is a very useful gun under certain circumstances. Home defense - especially if you live out in the country - maybe some large group of people think you are easy pickins. During the LA riots, Korean shop keepers used semi-auto rifles to defend their shops from looting and burning when law and order broke down.

also, the bill of rights says what it says...but is everyone out there really so paranoid that the government is going to come along one day, become a corrupt dictatorship, and kill everyone who opposes it?

This seems unlikely right now doesnt it? Its really kind of a chicken and egg scenario. Are we dictator free because we have guns, or are our guns unnecessary because we are dictator free?

Do you believe that there are men (and women) in office today that are capable of despotic power grabs and Stalin-like reigns of terror - if they had the chance?

The problem with this situation is - if we say "no dictators here!, lets get rid of the guns." If you are wrong, there is simply no coming back.

JPFO will tell you that in the 20th century, Governments killed citizens at a rate of 2,000 people PER DAY. All of them subject to disarmament. What is it in America or Americans that says we cannot twist off and have our own Hitler or Stalin? Because "we dont think so"?

in addition, what are the chances of a foreign invasion (much less one that our military couldn't defend against on its own)?

This kind of goes back to the despotic scenario. It has been written that Japan briefly considered an invasion in WWII - but they had read of our civilian rifle contests and felt it would be suicide. We are a nation of 300M people. Big, but not the biggest. China has what? 1200M people? India 1000M people. If they decided to conduct a land war here, I doubt we could completely prevent it. Realistically, a civil war or despotic coup is much more likely (but thankfully still very unlikley).[/b]

as proven on 9-11 by the passengerson board the plane that crashed in pennsylvania, you don't need a gun on airplanes.

besides, what would happen to an airliner at 35000 feet if a bullet went through the side of the passenger compartment?

It is unlikely anything would happen. Planes have pressurization systems that can easily keep up with a few bullet holes. The sucked out myth was popularized in Goldfinger. It can happen in the right situation, but a bullet hole is simply too insignificant to a large plane to matter.

stuff like handguns and gun safety ill talk about later since everyone on this forum sounds as though they are sane enough, smart enough, and mature enough to handle such things accordingly.

This is actually the best way to stir the pot around here. You are essentially implying that "some are more equal than others" and that we should perhaps filter out the "undesireables" from the potential pool of gun owners. There is no way to know who will be good and bad - any predictive system will have faults and will be inaccurate or even rigged and inherently unfair.

This is actually prior restraint - restricting you from certain actions because you might! be a problem in some way. Imagine having to get a license to speak or be given equal protection.

Looking forward to next time,

David Rees

 

[Feanaro]

Welcome to the boards, I hope you will keep an open mind. I suggest http://www.gunfacts.info/ as a good source of info.

First, some facts. The government can hurt you. Badly. The Nazis, China, Russia, England, America and beyond have all hurt their citizens before. It might not ever happen, but it could. And I don't know about you but sixty million or more firearm owners is a scary statistic for someone who wants to disarm us. Disarmament is often followed by further removal of freedom. Perhaps not in our lifetime but it often happens because there can be no resistance from the people. Non-violent resistance is nice and all but look where it gets Cubans.

Even given that a foreign invasion is unlikely it is POSSIBLE. When we do not prepare for what could happen, when it does we are hurt for our lack of preparation.

If my firearms training makes me an efficient killer, so what? To kill a man is something one should not take lightly. But I consider knowing how to kill important. That is going to sound very strange and possibly even wrong. But some people are bad. They are bad because they might try to kill me, for whatever reason. I have a right, despite what anyone may say, to remove that person from the Earth if they attack me or another person. I pray I never need to and if I do have to that they survive. I consider it a sort of grim duty, something I do not want to do but something that I must do if I am put into such a situation.

Now, on to military firearms. Hunting is a very fine sport but it is not the main reason we have the Second Amendment. Defense of our lives, our fellow beings and our country is why we have them. A military weapon such as the Thompson SMG or M16A1/2 are actually very good defensive weapons. A shotgun is well and good but it has heavy recoil from 12 to 20 gauge. Any smaller and you aren't really using an effective weapon. A pistol is nice but it is not the best weapon type. It's easy to point but it lacks the power of a shotgun or rifle. A regular hunting rifle is either bolt action(slow) or of small caliber.

So we are left with a military firearms. A shortened M16 offers light recoil, good stopping power, follow up shots can be easily made and it can be operated by a monkey with a little practice. A shortened version allows you to easily move through a house without snagging the rifle. A Thompson SMG allows you to put multiple pistol rounds on someone, in a small package that recoils very little.

That is one way to look at it. I prefer this however. How much more deadly is an M16 than a shotgun with a mag extention. You can kill seven, eight people very quickly with a shotgun and it doesn't need to be so carefully aimed. Or you could snipe at people with a scoped bolt action. It would be hard to see a far away shooter. There are endless ways to kill people and a military firearm offers only one more way. And it is not even the most effective way, either.

Any criminal that does not want to be caught will not use an assault rifle/weapon. They are large(Can't be tucked away in big coat, which makes you kinda suspect, walking around with a huge rifle) and loud. One could point out the Mac-10 and such as concealable weapons that a criminal might want. But criminals get what they want anyways. They either steal their weapons or buy them on the black market. They are a non-issue as far as crime.

But let us go deeper. If I can be trusted with hunting weapons, which can easily be turned on humans, why can't I be trusted with military weapons? There might be no use for them as far as hunting(Which actually isn't true. The M16's cartridge, as well as the G3's and sometimes even the AK's are used for hunting and to good effect. You don't need to reload often and they are more reliable.) but they are of military value and thus of value to a militia. And as long as I am hurting no one why shouldn't I have one?

 

[mattd]

Banning Weapons is a preemption that you are going to commit a crime. Therefor if you belive in banning or limiting weapons in anyway you belive I shouldn't sell you a can of pop because you might litter. You can't belive one with out believing the other, if you do, your ideology is false and you need to rethink it.

The only people who are going to follow the laws are law abiding citizens, get it?

 

[trooper]

Hi James,

first, I'm very impressed that someone who is not into guns actually stepped up to gun owners and shooters and simply asked.

As it was said before, the people on this board really are decent folks and I'm sure you will get to hear some interesting info and points of view, even if you happen to disagree with some of them.

Here's my personal view regarding this "need" thing:

I'm from Germany (yeah, this board is multinational as well) and our recently implemented firearms law is based on the concept that you can't have a weapon without proving a need for it. And of course the government gets to decide which "needs" are acceptable: you have a "need" for a firearm if you have a valid hunting license (which is really hard to get) or if you are member of a recognized shooting sports association.

If your association has less than 10,000 members it won't be recognized by the state and therefore its members have no "need" for a firearm anymore. Additionally, the ministry of the interior gets to decide which shooting disciplines and weapons are suitable for sports purposes. If it comes to the conclusion that a particular way of training (!!!) is meant to develop defensive abilities rather than competition skills, it is outlawed for anyone but CCW holders (which are EXTREMELY rare here). I'm still amazed that they didn't prohibit IPSC yet.

To put it short, we have a need-based system and the gov't decides for you whether you need a gun. See my point?

The result is that the number of guns among the law-abiding part of the population is reduced. And now someone else go and explain the statistics to James, please...

As a last word, I can only encourage my American friends to keep on fighting for their rights. We already are way more down the slope, and you really don't want to get here.


Regards,

Trooper

 

[Delmar]

Hello James, and welcome to the forum!
May I say it is refreshing to hear from someone who does not like guns to seek opinions and reasoning from those who do.

It does seem sometimes that the mention of guns brings out some kind of mental picture in a lot of people-some see guns a nothing more than a tool, and others see them as a terrror weapon.

Most people here, as you correctly stated, see firearms as a hobby. Others, such as officers of the law, carry one as part of their profession.
It is a way to gather meat humanely, untainted by steroids and the filth of a rendering plant, as a means of protection from criminals, and as a way of protecting their homes, their communities and their lives.

Some questions for you-have you ever fired a weapon? Were you raised around weapons? Have you personally been around someone who misused or had someone you know who has been wounded or murdered/committed suicide with a firearm?

There are those here who do in fact practice with firearms to become more efficient in defending themselves and the people they love with a firearm, and if you would ask them, I think most here would agree that brandishing a firearm is the LAST option. And any thinking person who really knows their way around a firearm would much rather talk the person down or have law enforcement on the scene to quell a bad situation.
Most of us, especially some of the law enforcement officers who are members here, would likely tell you from experience that there are many times that they cannot reach a bad situation in time to stop it.
Sadly, they arrive at the scene to pick up the pieces and to take a victim to the hospital or the morgue, where, if a responsible person trained effectively in the use of firearms, could have stopped it.
Many times, as it has been proven over and over again, the mere display of a firearm has stopped a bad situation before it became deadly or at least really ugly.
Because they practice with a firearm, they well know the strengths and weaknesses of the weapon and of themselves. It is a far cry from what you see in the movies!

So far as actually owning M-16's and Tommyguns, let me first say that they are not the same as owning the genuine article-they are lookalikes. They do not have fully automatic capability, and by that I mean to say that when you press the trigger, you will get one shot only, just like a hunting rifle. They are no more-but no less dangerous than a common hunting rifle. The cartridge an M16 takes is no more dangerous than the same cartridge fired out of a single shot sporting rifle.
There are those few who apply to the federal government to own a fully automatic rifle, and they go through a background check which most politicians could not pass, plus they are investigated by state and local authorities as to their background and character. And they pay enormous sums of money both for the license to own them and for the weapon itself. And after going through all of that, there are very very few places they are allowed to shoot them-most gun ranges will not allow anyone to fire a fully automatic weapon, period.

As to the government actually turning against its citizens, keep in mind the very reason for the Bill of Rights was to keep the government from having the capability of disarming law abiding Americans, as they saw what a government who had that power could and sometime would do with the King of England, and they made certain our government would never have that power, so that they could never be tempted to do so.
It also is a means of establishing trust between the government and the people, and if the day comes when the government does not trust the people with firearms, we should not have that government in power.
After all, the entire meaning of our Constitution is that the government was established and rules with the concent of the people, and we should never give that consent away. To do so would be at our peril.

 

[gunsmith]

welcome james

besides, what would happen to an airliner at 35000 feet if a bullet went through the side of the passenger

if you were in a hollywood movie you would get sucked out...in real life maybe the little oxygen mask would drop down.

as proven on 9-11 by the passengers on board the plane that crashed in pennsylvania

There was a CA Law Enforcement Officer on that flight!!
Denied his gun (unlike the movies most cops can not carry on board) he could not just shoot the badguys....Americans are now suffering wide spread attacks by government agencies failing to respect their Right of self protection as secured by constitutional law. _ Your Right to own a gun is inalienable. _ Any and all other legislative enactments to the contrary, that are designed to erode, undermine or attrite that Right are invalid, immoral and an invitation to massive non-compliance by the people._ The Second Amendment was not intended to guarantee your bird hunting, or for states to maintain militias._ The Second Amendment was and is intended to guarantee an individual's Right to protect his God-given Rights from abuse of government power under the color of authority._ Governments that disarm their citizens do so only for the purpose of unlawfully controlling them by force. Like other criminals, they do not want armed victims questioning their power to steal your money and property.
http://www.guncite.com/
Since 1934, only one legally owned machine gun has ever been used in crime, and that was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
---

 

[chevrofreak]

The most basic instinct a human has is the will to survive, even if that means having to kill to do so. I firmly believe that if I have done nothing to provoke a violent attack, that I have every right to use any means necessary to ensure my survival.

I like to practice self defense scenarios so that in the event that I do actually need to use my firearm to defend myself, I can use it swiftly and efficiently.

The last thing I need when my life is on the line, is to be fumbling with a gun because I havent had enough practice drawing and firing while under pressure.

I also own guns for the sheer joy that I get from shooting them. It can be very physically and mentally challenging to do certain things, such as U.S.P.S.A. and I.D.P.A. practical shooting.

Before you cement your beliefs into the back of your mind, I truly hope that you find a qualified instructor to teach you to shoot.

Another thing that you might consider, is that most of the "facts" thrown out there by the gun control advocates, like the Violence Policy Center, and many others, are either complete lies, or partial lies, in which they manipulate the information to make it look favorable to their agenda.

Many people like to compare the USA to Canada as far as gun violence goes. If you take a look at the states that are bordering Canada, and dig up some of their statistics, you will actually find that they have very comparable gun death and crime rates.

Montana, has approximately 4 deaths per 100,000 people, in which a firearm was involved. Of these 4 per 100,000, approximately 50% are accidental, 25% are suicides, and the other 25% are homicide.

Montana is also estimated to have between 85% and 95% of the households containing a firearm.

I wish you luck in your quest for information, and I hope that you find all the answers and truth that you seek.


Roger

 

[S_O_Laban]

Howdy James and welcome to The High Road. After rereading your post I'm not so sure you are the "anti" that you think you are . What ever you politics I'm glad you stopped by and hope you stay and become a regular. Many of us around here welome "Antis" .

Your bound to get many more responses to your questions but I'll take a stab at one.

what would happen to an airliner at 35000 feet if a bullet went through the side of the passenger compartment?

In a nutshell ? Not very much. Think about a bullet hole or even many many bullet holes in an airliner in relation to what happen to the Hawaiian Air flight that lost a large portion of the forward cabin area. You may have seen the movie they made about it on TV. In spite of incredible damage to the plane they still landed. Other than the few unsecured passengers and FAs that were sucked out every one else survived and in pretty good shape as well. It is true that IIRC this didn't happen at 35,ooo Ft and as some body earlier said the oxygen masks are going to drop down allowing you to breathe until you you reach a lower altitude. What I'm really trying to say is any airliner can sustain alot more damage than a few bullet holes from a lously handgun and still easily survive. Many don't realize the redundancy built into an airliner, if the bullets hit some vitial hydralic line or com cable there is usally two to three back up ways of doing what that componet does. An awfull lot has to happen to bring any airplane down. While I don't play an Aircraft Mechanic on TV, I was one in a former life

Don't be fooled by TV

 

[mec]

I immediately wonder if you are a fake anti-gun person writing just to launch an interesting topic. No matter, it's a good discussion but it would be nice if the board turned out to be so inclusive as to have a real anti-gun person in addition to the rest of us polyglots.

It seems like more and more people are becomming pro-gun or gun-neutral as the discussion broadens. Several people I know who didn't like guns have since taken them up as a hobby or defensive measure. I wonder if its the instrument people don't like or the steriotype of the gun enthusiast.

 

[jacketch]

James,
Do you have any experience with guns? What is your background? It might help us to understand where you are coming from. What is the research for?

 

[CZ 75 BD]

Welcome James,

You did not mention personal protection of life and family.

 

[GlocksRock]

i know that many of you here have killed more paper targets/ watermelons/ bowling pins/ old household appliances than living things, and see that as just as a hobby or honing of a skill. however, the skill is nothing less than being a more efficient killer.

But I'm not a killer, so that is a moot point. Unless you take into consideration the deer that I shoot, but I eat it, I don't just shoot it for the fun of it and let it die for no reason. I can't just go down to the local grocery store and buy some fresh venison.

 

[280PLUS]

what everybody else said,,,

and...

the final line of defense in any country is it's armed civilians

whether you or anyone else feels there is no possibility of it ever coming down to that here in the USA, there are plenty others who feel it may not be as remote as you think.

we take it upon ourselves to at least be familiar with the use of these weapons and being as accurate as we each can with them

so in the event it becomes necessary to use them, we'll be prepared

plus i'll reitterate one point here ITS FUN!!

when you can pick off little specks of orange clay without a scope at 100 yards, there is definitely a feeling of accomplisment

i'd almost guarantee a big WOOHOOO!! out of you the first time you did

lastly, i'm ex military, yes, US Navy. They taught me how to shoot in boot camp and that was pretty much the last time i held a gun throughout my 5 year enlistment. i was a mechanic. i still am. (but as a civilian now)

Military people do a lot more than just lug a gun around, those that do are most likely a small portion of the whole organization

ok, now who's taking him to the range???

 

[Monte Harrison]

James, I have some numbers to throw at you. Now, I'm quoting these from memory, but I assure you these are stats from the federal government, which has a vested interest in making firearms violence look as bad as possible to validate their attempts to disarm us. Anyway,

In a given year there are about 30,000 Americans who die as a result of gunfire. Pretty awful, considering that the number of deaths from traffic accidents is less than 40,000 now, and declining yearly. But let's look a little closer.

More than half of those 30,000 are suicides. One might make the argument that fewer of those attempts would have been successful without guns, but as far as I am concerned your life is your own, and ending it by your own choice is your right. So let's cut that number in half: 15,000 people killed against their will with gunfire. Still a lot.

Now let's look at the other side: Depending on whom you ask (whether they are anti-gun or pro-gun) there are between 500,000 and 2.5 million incidents in which a person uses a gun to defend themselves from crime in a given year. Just for the sake of argument, let's make a couple of assumptions: a. the lower number of incidents, 500,000, is more accurate, and b. in only 10% of those cases was the person's life actually in imminent danger. 10% of 500,000 is 50,000.

50,000 innocent lives protected vs. 15,000 lives lost.

In civilian hands, GUNS SAVE LIVES.

Do you see any holes in this logic?

 

[cslinger]

Not gonna reiterate what everybody else said. I just wanted to say welcome and how impressed I am that someone oppossed to firearms would take the time and effort to come to the horse's mouth so to speak.

We may not change your mind one iota, and that's ok, but I would bet you will have gained the respect of many of us for simply trying to learn about the subject in question instead of just taking what is on the news and other media as gospel.

So thank you very much for taking the time. Thank you very much for stopping by.

Oh and you are the 100th person to post on a full moon in June or something and have won an all expenses paid trip to the local range where you too can see what all the hubub is about. I am sure one of us is near enough to you to actually make good on that offer.

Anyway take care. Hope to see you post again.

 

[Waitone]

James, thanks for coming by.

okay, enough questions for now. what i will say about this forum, however, is the diversity of its members. for example, people like skunkabilly, microbalrog, runt_of_the_litter (i didnt expect to find any women here), etc. i was expecting to only find a bunch of rednecks, ex-military/ military, and guys like you see in the movie tremors.

I'll use your comments to make two points. Much of what the public knows about the gun culture is a caricature created and fed by media and anti-second amendment advocacy groups.

By and large we are stone cold normal people. We come from all walks of life. We have all manner of political beliefs though we tend toward the classical liberal // libertarian end of the spectrum. Occupations range from young students to anything you can imagine. We have ER physicians and techs who are regular contributors to the board. We have active and retired military and law enforcement types. We have computer and internet geeks. We seem to have more and more international contributors. I particularly like to read the work of our friends in Australia, UK, and Europe. We even get comments out of the middle east and southeast asia.

Socio-economics? Ranges across the board. The caricature is we are a bunch of rednecks, etc. Golf is considered an upper crust kinda sport. I play golf and I can tell you with great certainty shooting sports is grandly more expensive. You want to get into the shooting sports? Calculate the cost at every stage or you'll be surprised.

Final point is every person in the US is trained in the use of firearms. Yep, you read correctly. Training is courtesy of TV, movies, and video games. . . . . .. .. and it is 99.999% wrong. It is wrong about guns laws. It is wrong about safety. It is wrong on using firearms. It is wrong in every category I can think of.

You've done the right thing by wandering into the den of the opposition. Everyone on this board respects your courage and intellectual honest and integrity.

Let us know where you are and I'm sure you'll end up with an invitation to the range. Normally new board members are required to buy the ammo, but I'm sure membership rules will be waived in your case.

 

[XLMiguel]

James -
Welcome to The High Road, I hope you will find the answers you are looking for, (and I'm sure you'll also find some you weren't ).

As for not liking guns, I'd ask you why you have a problem with an inanimate object? Guns have no will of their own. They can be used properly by a cop or a soldier to preserve the peace, or by a citizen to protect (or feed) his/her family. But in the hands of a criminal, well, that's a whole 'nother issue, isn't it? Guns are just a tool, a glorified 'rock thrower', if you will, and like any tool, it can be used properly, or it can be misused with dire consequences. And a fool with a tool is still a fool.

I would also point out that assault is a behaviour, not a device. If you look around you, I'm sure you could imagine any number of ordinary objects in the room that could be used to hurt you, if someone were so inclined.

Gun control laws simply don't work. The operative definiton of a 'criminal', afterall, is one who does not obey the law, and crimianls will always find a way to get guns if they want them. Ask yourself why the cities with the strictest 'gun control' laws (i.e. LA, Chicago, Washington, DC, NYC) have the highest violent (including gun-related violence) crime rates? Gun control laws do hinder honest citizens from being able to defend themselves, and I can only ask you to compare the crime rates in the 33 states that have 'shall issue' concealed weapons laws vs. the states with discretionary or non-issue laws (stats available at the DOJ website-).

As far as anti-government paranoia goes, I believe that Jefferson wasn't whistling Dixie when he said "the price of Freedom is eternal vigilence.' I don't believe that 'the government is inherently evil, but I do believe is [too] big, dumb, and clumsy; it panders to the lowest common denominator; and it is in the nature of government to 'control' things. Control is anathemic to Freedom. Basically, we've got to watch them politicans all the time.

As for myself, I own 10 or so handguns, and I enjoy target shooting. I work as an IT consultant, specializing in document/knowledge management. I am a veteran (Viet Nam-era), was on the pistol team in college, used to hunt when I was younger. I kind of dropped out of shooting after the Army, but got back into it after a couple of stoned-out greaseballs tried to force their way into my house one afternoon ( like a 'conservative' is a liberal who has been mugged). Although I had no particular problem repelling boarders that time, I did realize I'm too old to dance with fools (and a blown-out knee and fused ankle in the interrim has re-enforced that notion), so I went out and got me a 9mm. I take responsible gun ownership seriously, so I started to practice regularly, got a carry permit, read alot about gun laws and the legitimate use of lethal force, and rediscovered the joys of target shooting (sort of like golf, but without ruining a good walk ). My collection kind of grew as I learned more about the different styles and types of handguns ( and they're cheaper and easier to store than all the cars/trucks/bikes I'd love to own).

Hope this helps. Given that one set of answers gives birth to the next set of questions, I'll stop here. I'm sure that the members here can furnish you with all the references and substantiation on virtually and firearms-related question, so don't be shy. And again, welcome to THR.

 

[280PLUS]

hey mike,,,

i'm not sure there even WAS a dixie to whistle in jeffersons day,,,





theres one in every crowd...i guess it's me today...

 

[Zak Smith]

James, welcome.

the skill is nothing less than being a more efficient killer.

I disagree with this reasoning. There are many sports that have "martial" roots, but the purpose of those sports is not to be a more efficient warrior.

Modern shooting sports that have no "practical" aspect, such as Olympic shooting sports, directly refute your statement that they are "nothing less than being a more efficient killer", since they do not teach skills particularly suited to killing. You want an efficient killer? Go take some some real military training.

Generally, I think there are several really important points to be made about gun ownership:

1. The right to self defense. A person has the right to defend themselves (or another person) against attack. If effective tools to enable this defense are prohibited, the right is near useless.
   
2. The difference between the verbs, "to kill" and "to murder." Not sure what the difference is? Look them both up in the dictionary. To kill is to deprive of life; to murder is to unlawfully or immorally kill someone.
   
   In other words, there is a concept of morally killing someone, and immorally doing so. Going back to the Right to Self Defense, it is moral to kill someone who is attacking you with deadly force. It is immoral to kill someone who is not threatening you with deadly force - that's murder.
   
3. Utility. I don't like using this argument because it's not really based on a principle, but: Some people do things they need to use a firearm for: hunting for food, wild animal control or pest control, etc.
   
   Going further, it is possible to make Utilitarian arguments for gun ownership (or concealed carry) . Two examples would be: (1) If many people in the USA own guns, the no army could invade or tyrant come to power, or (2) when more people carry legal concealed weapons, violent crime decreases.
   
   Both of those are most likely true, but these types of arguments based on Utility can be invalidated when the goal changes, or the circumstances change.
   
4. The Principle of freedom, and power. I think this category contains the best arguments for the ownership of firearms, because it changes the question to, "Why shouldn't I own firearms, if I want to?".
   
   People should be free to do what they want, as long as they do not hurt others or damage the property of others. Under this principle, all unlawful actions would be actions that directly hurt another person or deprive them of their property (or its value). This is often called the Non-Aggression Principle ("NAP").
   
   This idea is common to libertarians and is quite far away from how even America's government runs.
   
   Freedom is messy. People can do all sorts of things and some of those things will be things you don't like. This brings us to power.
   
   Whenever you speak of government, law, "ought"'s, and "should"'s, you are really talking about power. Who should have it?
   
   Balance of power is good. The most tyrannical regimes have none. The USA has some balance of power. The ultimate balance of power is for individuals to retain it, and this requires individual freedom, power, and responsibility
   
   Another way to put this is: Who knows what's best for me? Who knows what I want? Who knows what turns my crank? A bloated bureaucracy (ie, the government), or me?
   
   The idea that the government should decide which forms of "fun" - or what sports are "sporting" - is ludicrous.
   
   So, under the principle of freedom: If I own guns and shoot them safely, putting no one else in danger, you have absolutely no right to say I cannot have them.
   
   If you claim that you do, then you implicitly claim some power over me. If you claim it's "to make society safe", then you are reverting to some argument based on perceived Utility.

 

[Trisha]

Hello, James.

You bring up a point I have always found truly fascinating: the concept that our anthropological history as becoming the most successful killer, the most ingenious, the superpredator - bar none - is somehow to be viewed with horror and disavowed vehemently in today's society.

It has become unfashionable to celebrate that genetic fact in recent decades as blatently socialistic forces have encroached and are reaching for dominance in mass media. A simple sociological overview on your part will bear this out, as you compare even just television programs from the mid-50's to today. The result has been just as obvious: tell someone a lie often enough and it will eventually supplant the truth.

Beyond my study of firearms, I pursue martial arts, edged weapons, history, philosophy, art history and music as related fields. My reasoning is simple. An intelligent and diverse human is predisposed to curiosity to the surroundings, to the signs of other predators, to the achievements of culture, to the horrors of our shared past. Insight and depth gained from such studies yields an enhanced command of language and conceptual nuance - and that delivers the consciousness to new heights of perception.

Consider - without the evolved facilities to express one's self, anthropologists believe that the capacity for intelligence is inherently restricted in humans.

What has this to do with your subject? Simple. The suprepredator/human possesses the intellectual depth to secure a measure of safety from other superpredator/humans. The strong prey on the weak, both individually and as organized cultures when the stakes are survival and the accumulation of physical goods deemed either desirable or necessary to insure or accentuate some envisioned quality of life.

It is not wrong to be strong, to pursue the arts of war - it is the human birthright.

It has been my experience to discover the more I study and train, the more I value not only my life but the lives of others, both locally and far beyond. I have discovered real calm and peace to be in my heart, even when confronted by some consumed by pathological hatred - for I understand very well just how fragile their life is should the threat escalate to my being unable to escape without using the skills (with the tools - both material and mental) of war to secure my safety.

Contemporary media, in its' pursuit of advertizing and with its' cheerful disregard of reality delivers hyperbole and fantasy in popular entertainment. That you mention a concern for weapons fire in a pressurized aircraft highlights this. A study of physics wwould immediately dispel your concersn, as would converstaions with pilots who've operated aircraft that have sustained astonishing structural damage - and no lives were lost. Such images as you express concern over are more often found in science fiction/fantasy screenplays.

Personally, I find life far more interesting, sparking more curiosity and delight as I am able to live freely without the abject fear (or not - if one is in complete denial) bourn of the victim mentality. You see, James, humans are competitive. We strive to out do 'the Jone's' next door. We pursue excellence in every venture to standards of our conscious choosing, likely often compensating for failure in one area with less strenuous achievement in another.

I will never aquiesce and relegate any or all aspects and applications of everyday life that are even fractionally congruent to my safety and security and thus my natural and inherent liberty to another person, civil authority, or theologic dogma - even under duress to comply with a contemporary and popular fad that so deviously and methodically insitst I cherish helplessness, weakness, and thence devoiton to the patriarchial governance of the cattle-herder of the socialist.

There is a wonder to be embraced with relish and joy in achieving and pursuing the legitimacy to stand beside the ghosts of those bloodied patriots, men and women and children, ordinary people, who shook the bedrock of this planet and, for the first time saw simple ideas become the words:

"We, the People. . ."

That's derided today, in public education, in fashionable serialized plays of fiction, even with those who are elected to serve their constituents in our Republic's Capitol. When those firmply penned words are lost today, I hear another voice.

A voice that was also heard around the planet, speaking simple words that made Americans open their eyes and weep with joy, reclaiming their most unique history:

"Lets roll!"

Ask yourself this, James; a hypothetical question and one I pray never comes to pass: were you to see masked terrorists jump out of a van directly in front of you, savagely gunning down a uniformed police officer on patrol in front of a church for a wedding and hear gunfire within the church, with screams fo the wounded rising - would you take up the fallen officer's weapon and unhesitatingly advance to defy the murderers, even at the risk of your own life?

Would you know how to apply the arts of war as an American?

Admittedly, my hypothetical scenario could be argued many ways by many people - so write your own from a review of Angel Shamaya's KeepAndBearArms.com

Liberty is an individual reality, not a bandied concept droned past foggy minds and uncaring, easily distracted hearts during a civics class that involves old guys that've been dead a long time.

It is not bestowed benevolently by a totalitarian government, authorized by a theocratic dogma - it is what makes us completely unique in the entire history of man - and it has incredible, broad, persistent responsibilities.

Welcome to THR, James!