Dude, some things are TMI even for The Pit. Just sayin’
:::fuckin’ gross:::
There is a kind of reasoning here that glimmers and shines like the rainbows the float on oily water. You assure of us your trust in others, and further assure us that this happy fact is a direct result of your preparation and willingness to shoot them. And you mean this sincerely, without so much as a hint of irony. As baffling as I find it, I believe you.
How do you see the tactics of the situation? Your weapon is holstered, how much warning do you expect to get? You get to say “King’s X, put your gun back and then we count three, and then we start punching holes into each other…Ready?..”
(As I said, I’ve been robbed at gunpoint. Shit happens, mostly to me. When the cop asked me what he looked like, I realized I had never actually looked at his face, I spent all my attention on that goddam gun. Looking back, almost certainly a cheap shit .25 automatic, but one oddly fitted out with a .99 caliber barrel. I know, because I looked straight down it. Maybe an anti-aircraft barrel, big sumbitch…)
Of course, I don’t know much about it outside of my own limited experience. Maybe its common for armed muggers to alert you of their intentions, perhaps as a sort of fair play sportsmanlike behavior. I would be very surprised to hear it, but confess I don’t have any authoritative knowledge.
Lumpy, I’m a good guy, I wear the white hat, and it ain’t a disguise. I am blessed with the calm temperament and sweet reason for which native Texans are so widely admired. And maybe I might consider myself trustworthy enough to carry, though I’d rather have a gila monster in my pocket than a pistol. Damn sight cuter.
But I’m not that sure. Its a civic duty, a collective responsibility. Telling myself I am responsible enough to carry lethal force is a level of arrogance even I find forbidding. And you? You’ve met some other folks with CCW? Did you invariably think they were the very paragons of responsibility and sober restraint. (Might have to adjust the calibration there, you’re likely talking about Minnesotans…)
Are they all as calm, intelligent and reasonable as you? Never met one that gave you a shiver of doubt? You probably stand at very similar bus stops to me, you look around at the cluster of lumpennorth and think “What a swell thing it would be if more of these people were armed!”
Well, lets just agree to disagree, and I’ll back away slowly.
I believe that I am entitled to kill in some circumstances. Self defense is one of them.
Because guns are lethal. They are an effective form of suicide, claiming almost 20k successful suicides per year. There are an additional 12k gun homocides every year.
Ive had shivers of doubt about some cops and soldiers too but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of gun homocides are committed by people who are not legally allowed to have one, either because they are a felon or wife beater.
You keep saying that like you’re playing the ace of trumps. Has anyone yet denied the right to self defense? The question is more about making that decision in advance, anticipating the situation.
Then I’m not sure we mean the same thing by the word “trust”. How do you define it? I used it to mean the statistical likelihood that almost all of the strangers I meet in public are decent and law-abiding; and that I’m prepared for the rare possibility that they aren’t, so I don’t have to presume the worst about everyone.
Suddenly and unexpectedly having a gun stuck in your face is a bad position to be in, no doubt. Which is why situational awareness is important.
How responsible is responsible enough?
You don’t “have to”. You do it for reasons of your own, reasons you may well insist are a reasonable response to living in the mild mild Midwest. I don’t. Do you think that my being an extraordinarily handsome devil gives me some advantage? Or perhaps they can detect the fact that I am a master of Cringing Mantis Kung Pao?
A little fuzzy on this whole “situational awareness” thing, here. I admit, it does sound important, but I am not sure precisely what it means. Heavens! Just realized I don’t have much situational awareness at all, beyond “Is the bus late, or am I early?”. Man, lucky to be alive, I guess, huh?
Is it “suspicious characters”? Some clue in manner or deportment? How do you calibrate this “awareness”? Is there a point at which you have too much “situational awareness”? If you do, how do you dial it back down?
Hell, son, you tell me! You’re the one that’s packing heat.
Someone- if only the police- has to carry guns. If you’re ok with that then presumably you think they’re responsible enough. Which is what in your opinion?
Not a bad evasion, just not very artful. The old “answer a question with a question” schtick is kinda dated, don’t you think?
But OK, start with training. According to this, a trainee police officer gets “14-16 weeks” of Academy training, followed by an additional five months field training. I don’t know what is required for your CCW, but I expect you do.
Your point (I thought) was that you shouldn’t have the ability to kill because you don’t think you have the right to kill. I disagreed, I think you have the right to kill in some circumstances.
Its not like we give the police license to kill, they have broader authority under their police powers but they can’t shoot a suspect just because the suspect is outrunning them and might get away. Their ability to use lethal force is also limited.
Are you saying that I have the right to self defense but I should wait until I am actually under threat before I find a way to defend myself with lethal force?
We are stuck with guns in this society and so unless you see the repeal of the second amendment on the horizon, our efforts should be towards reducing gun deaths and next to arming all the kindergarten principals, an AWB is about the dumbest way of trying to achieve that goal.
Why would anyone think that?
I asked a question. You replied with “you tell me”. So I clarified my previous question. Now you’re somehow claiming that I’m the one evading a question. :dubious:
How much of that time is spent on learning to use firearms and under what circumstances they should and should not be used? As opposed to everything else a police officer needs to know that is not firearms-related. I would say that anyone who has qualified for a carry permit and taken a couple of tactical defense classes is as prepared to make the legal and moral choice of whether or not to use a gun as your average police officer.
BTW: Dirty Harry “packs heat”. I carry a firearm.
Except I have to have armed police officers. Whether I trust them or no, have to have them. I have to have you? For what? Because you say so?
Now who doesn’t trust people? 
Ok, so you’re saying that police are a necessary evil. Question answered.
If you can twist balloons like you can twist words, you would make a good kid’s party clown.
IIRC NYC cops are only required to fire 150 rounds at the range every year plus go through some firearm obstacle courses. I remember thinking “I fired more rounds over the weekend” that says little about safety, etc. but it doesn’t mean they’re particularly good shots.
Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette, who has “been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years and has been deeply involved in the issue” made the following statement:
From here.
IMHO, this goes way beyond the misuse of magazine/clip that is so often a distraction in gun debates. She really seems to not understand what a high-capacity magazine is or how banning them would lead to a reduction in gun violence.
Her spokesperson’s clarification wasn’t much better.
Clips can’t be reused? Huh?
More not so stupid gun news:
"The Maryland House of Delegates has approved a gun-control measure proposed by Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley by a vote of 78-61.
It has a number of differences from a measure the Senate passed more than a month ago. The two chambers will have to work out the differences before the General Assembly adjourns at midnight Monday.
Still, the two House and Senate are largely in agreement on the major parts of the bill. They include a fingerprinting requirement to get a license for handguns and an assault weapons ban. The legislation also would limit magazines to 10 bullets. "
:smack::smack::smack:
I understand they are trying to undermine the most basic argument against a magazine cap. There are already so many of them out there that banning the further sales of magazines is stupid. I have more P-mags than I have bullets for at the moment. I don’t know how I accumulated them, I remember buying one or two here and there and suddenly I have a couple of dozen (they cost about $10-$15 and I got a lot of them for free). For a few weeks in January, they were going for $100 each and selling out at those prices.
The gun control nuts must understand by now that bans without confiscation achieves little to nothing considering how many are already out there. It is a lot like closing the barn door after the horses are already out. It achieves very little unless you go out there and round up the horses.
If the gun control nuts weren’t so irrational, they would push for licensing and registration. Something that enjoys a lot of popular support, is clearly within the bounds of the constitution, and would be vastly more effective in reducing gun violence than an AWB or a magazine cap.
A famous liberal POTUS from TEXAS proposed as much back in the 1960’s.
Obama has lost the initiative and his opportunity to bring about meaningful change in gun policy because he listened to the gun control nuts. I’m not the first one to think so and i’m not the only one to think so.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-16/opinions/35863805_1_gun-control-gun-bill-gun-lobby
In the aftermath of the assassination of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. LBJ tried to pass national licensing and registration requirements with the knowledge that he had a few weeks if not days to get legislation through congress. But Senator Tydings tabled LBJs proposal to push a more radical proposal and the bill got tied up in committee and gun control lobby lost the initiative. Tyding lost his opportunity to bring about meaningful change and he lost his reelection bid because he overplayed his hand.
Feinstein is to Obama what Tyding was to LBJ. In light of this history, Obama has noone to blame but himself.
So you gun control nuts can cuss all you want and blame the gun lobby for not just lying down or going away (I’m sure they feel the same way about you) but you really have noone to blame but yourselves because you folks were too ignorant about history, ignorant about guns, and stupid about politics to understand that you should have taken licensing and registration (I reckon you could have had it in January if you let the ghost of LBJ run things instead of the senior senator from California) rather than roll the dice on something as fucking retarded as an AWB.
I am sure that we are all dreadfully sorry that we have failed, once again, to rise to your expectations. WE can only hope that, someday, you may find it in your heart to forgive, but such generosity of spirit cannot be expected to be squandered on people who refuse to learn the intricacies of magazine capacities and bayonet mounts, yet nonetheless persist in having opinions.
Please be advised that we are sufficiently abashed and admonished, and no further remonstrances of this sort are required.
But it is relevant if proposals to ban some- but not all- guns are based on what the proscribed guns can or cannot do, compared to the ones that are not being considered for banning. At the far end of the spectrum you get full-retard statements like Jesse Jackson thinking that assault rifles can shoot down airliners. Is it too much to ask that a ban be debated on reality instead of myths and prejudice?