I get that you are trying to explain yourself. Nevertheless, revisiting the scene of the crime is a bad idea here. It looks like you are repeating your threat or issuing a new one. So here’s what we’re going to do:
ExTank: Please drop the issue in this thread.
Anybody who wants to take ExTank to task for his previous threats in this thread, Pit him: start a new thread about it. In that new thread, he’ll be able to explain what he meant or did not mean, and offer whatever defenses or justifications he has. He will not be permitted to issue new threats.
Paramilitary/Military Men, would you rather hang up your guns when you come home and feel safe doing that, or do you want to always live with that paranoia of the unknown, not knowing whether the next person is an armed hostile or armed friend (concealed or open) in your own goddamn, supposedly fucking, civilized country? If not, what are you fighting for?
The use of weapons should be their ultimate obliteration, their passing need, their obsolescence… not their proliferation.
After all of these pages of nonsense from everybody involved, this is what it comes down to? An appeal to emotion?
I’m fighting to defend the Constitution. That’s the oath we take. The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution. That makes it among the rights I am defending, and among the rights that I exercise.
As far as “…do you want to always live with that paranoia of the unknown, not knowing whether the next person is an armed hostile or armed friend (concealed or open) in your own goddamn, supposedly fucking, civilized country?” goes, I’ll leave the worrying to you. In spite of your impassioned plea here, I’m sure you don’t lose any sleep over it.
I lose sleep sleeping thinking of my countrymen that die each day for no reason. The ones who were put in the situation by people that I didn’t elect, or who were betrayed by people I did elect.
BTW, I don’t think that it gets mentioned enough, but the level of fairness, coolness, and professionalism with which you moderate the SDMB BBQ Pit is absolutely exemplary, and very consistent too.
Please give some real life examples of how your personal liberty has been restricted.
Against my own good advice, I returned to this thread mainly to note that your recent contributions are emotionally incontinent blather, even by the low standard of the SDMB anti-gun cohort.
I left the Army, from Ft. Hood, in the Fall of '91. One fine October day, my platoon sergeant and I went out to lunch, at the local Dennys. We ate lunch, and as we were leaving, there were hordes of cop cars, ambulances, and helicopters swarming towards the Luby’s, about a 1/2 mile up the road.
We’d skipped Luby’s in favor of Dennys, but it was a toss-up as to which one we were going to have lunch at.
Events like the Luby’s Massacre are so rare that neither side of this argument has much to gain by using them as examples.
Those mass murders happen so seldom and so sudddenly that carrying a gun specifically to protect yourself in such a situation seems to be paranoia to the antis.
Restricting and banning guns in order to prevent such events seems onerous, unfair, and knee-jerk emotionalism to the pro side, in light of the many millions of guns that are owned by many millions of good citizens and that are never used to harm others.
Perhaps if the argument (I won’t dignify it as a debate) centered more around the common types of crime encountered by the citizens of the US there could be more light and less heat.
Thanks for your comments and for keeping them rational, rather than simply insulting other posters, like others seem to do.
Here is an area where I wish I could see more studies and numbers. I don’t agree that if we add up my 5 numbers, we get a relatively small number; I think it is a significant number. When I look south of the border and see a rate of homicides due to guns approximately 12 times higher in the US Accidental deaths from firearms are 2.9 times higher. Suicides with firearms 2.3 times higher. Murders with handguns 15 times higher. (Murders without firearms are only 1.7 times higher)
I ascribe these numbers to the relative ease of obtaining firearms in the United States. You may have other explanations, but I think mine is the most straightforward.
When I look south, I see a society that is trying an experiment with
All the other situations where the pro-gun group claims to be safer are rare too. If I’m a criminal with a gun and mug you in an alley you aren’t going to have time to pull your gun, if I want to cajack you I’ll have my gun on you preventing you from drawing yours. I want something from your house? Fuck the home invasion, why would I do that? I’ll just go in when you’re not home and take what I want. Top item on my list: your gun. Really, how many people have you known who have defended themselves with a gun? It’s just not that common. I can see why you feel more secure but your next door neighbour who doesn’t own a gun can sleep just as peacefully at night. Guns are fun, guns are useful. They are not protecting millions of homeowners.
Forgot to add - I completely understand 1010011010’s "long term benefit to society argument. I don’t agree with it, but don’t have any valid reason why. It is perhaps the most powerful argument for freer access to firearms.
See, you’re talking out of your ass here. Blogs have been cited in this thread that are concerned with successful use of firearms in self-defense. The NRA magazines have “The Armed Citizen” column every month , which collects newspaper accounts of same. I have personally defended myself several times with a gun; thankfully without having to shoot anybody. Not every criminal attack takes the form of an ambush, you see. However uncomfortable it may make you, it is a fact that everyday people use guns to protect themselves from criminals. If you just want to handwave that away, you are willfully ignoring the truth and there can be no meaningful discussion with you.
Would you mind describing what happened those times? This isn’t meant to be a challenge, I just don’t hear these kinds of stories very often, which is as you say a contributing factor to my overall perspective on the relative pros and cons of gun ownership.
Used a gun to gain exit from a car when hitching as a young man. The guy who picked me up was telling me his plans for me in some detail and had indicated I had no choice in the matter. He was a good bit bigger than me and relying on that to intimidate me, I guess.
Used a gun to chase off a fellow who attemted to mug me at an ATM. I heard him coming up on me and already had the gun in my hand in my coat pocket.
Used a gun to chase off a group of chemically- altered yoots in a roadrage incident. They were angry over a near collision which had been their drunk, swerving fault. They were in front of me and when we hit a construction zone, they stopped. I was blocked by them in front and other cars behind. They started to get out of their car and move on me, but the display of a handgun caused them_after a little thought and discussion_to reconsider.
It’s good that the only person with a gun was a responsible person. The situation I’m nervous about is when EVERYONE is armed. Then the yoots would have gone back to their car, retrieved their weapons, and showed you some respect. And possibly people in the cars behind would have come to your defense with their own weapons. Someone else mght have weighed in on the yoots side. An unpleasant scene ensues.
I really wish that more emphasis was put on the first part of the 2nd :
This makes sense to me, and speaks to the “long term” consequences of having nobody allowed to have access to guns. The key word is “regulated”. It seems that the writers of the 2nd did not have a problem with regulations. It would appear that they did not think guns should be freely available, willy-nilly both to reasonable people like Scumpup as well as to idiots like road raging “yoots”