That opens up all weapons. I have personally competed for score with the M60.
Again, a bolt action rifle took down Kennedy and hit a few others as well. Forcing them in all hunting situations means more wounded animals.
Your first belief is echoed in most state laws. A person in my living room is putting me in immediate danger, I don’t have time to ask them if they are a nice burglar or a mean robber or an evil rapist/murderer.
There are some rounds that are shotgun style rounds for handguns. They are made to not penetrate walls in apartments, but will still kill when you hit the center mass. Anything less and you get an angry wounded felon instead of a dead one.
That does not stand up to the data. Concealed Carry permits have not resulted in any measurable increase in crime, and can be argued to have reduced violent crime in some cases.
Why draw the line there? Even a bolt-action rifle can be used to devastating effect to murder people.
I absolutely agree, though if someone is just stealing your TV, using or threatening to use a firearm to “scare them off” is just stupid - the gun shouldn’t come out unless there’s a reason to use it.
When it comes to defensive force, the most effective means of incapacitation are also the most likely to result in death. This is unfortunate, perhaps, but if there is justification to use lethal force in self-defense, there’s no sense crying for the aggressor. Less lethal means of defense against imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm are all well and good, but not necessary.
Aside from the objections raised by Algher, why should people be obligated to be defenseless in public? Who will be responsible for your personal safety, if you yourself are prohibited from acting effectively in defense? Hint: it’s not the police - they have no duty to protect you, as has been repeatedly affirmed by the nation’s courts.
If I carried a belt-fed machine gun out in the country, that would be a hell of a lot of fun blasting away at stuff. Great stress relief as well. That is peaceful. No one is hurt.
If you aren’t talking about cold-blooded murder, there are legitimate reasons for killing people, and lots of them. War, gangs, a government that has become tyrannical are just a few of the people that need to be killed in self-defense should, God forbid, the situation warrants.
And as a side note, these 300 to 400 per minute stats are just stats. You need some strong arms or big trucks to carry ammo for the hypothetical “massacre”. The Thompson sub-machine gun fires at a rate of 650 rounds per minute, but it came with a 20 round mag. So how long did that gunfire last?
Trick question! The damned thing always jams on me when I fire it!!! (There is a place in Vegas that I go to on visits where you can fire a Tommy Gun).
Need? I own 8 guns. All where handed down to me. I enjoy shooting all of them.
Any of them can be used for self protection, and any can be used for sport or hunting.
I used to keep a loaded .357 in the house. My Wife and I live very far from any help. We live in the sticks. I do want to get a quick access safe for it.
My Wife, has never been a shooter. I have been since I was 9 years old. My Wife asked about a gun that would be suitable for her. I tried. She tried. We have property that we can shoot on. IMHO, she will never be comfortable shooting. She’s way way behind the eight ball.
She’s a triathlete. This came up again when that girl got killed in Georgia (she runs with our dogs too). Well, you sure don’t want to train, even runing on mountain trails with a gun on your hip. Pepper spray it is.
This is a good solution for my Wife. And we will keep some handy in the house. And I will keep our guns as well. Don’t think that gun owners want anti-tank missles. They just want a little reason.
Don’t really know If I know what you mean by low-powered. I doubt you do either. Pretty much all LEO’s (law enforcment agencies) have gone to higher capacity semi-auto pistols. Though I don’t have one.
Nothing. Though some hunters will carry a large caliber pistol as well.
What the hell is a general civilian purpose? And define high power.
You are talking about the so called ‘Assault-Weapons’ legal semi-automatic versions of military arms. You said that home defence was fine. You said sport shooting was fine. The CAR15 works well in both capacities. And it’s a good varmit weapon.
Nah. I like my 30-30 It’s a wimp compared to most hunting rifles but it still has it use. I don’t think poorly of it. Though, there are times when a pistol or larger rifle or shotgun is the better choice.
**JB Brown - **It’s pretty clear that those that would like to impose additional gun laws, know very, very little about firearms. That bugs me.
Anyway, wasn’t this thread about the SCOTUS looking at making guns legal in DC with a permit. And not issuing any permits.
Ms. Brown, I would like to educate you about firearms. Do you have any questions?
There are three ways we could discuss this. We could discuss the Second Amendment, as noted by Miller, and the resulting state of gun laws.
We could discuss the threats facing citizens by out of control policemen.
Or we could discuss personal ancedotes about our shooting habits.
Personally, I own two shotguns. One is a pre-1968 Mossberg 500, in 20 gauge. It is a shotgun you would recognize, despite being over forty years old. It is the prototypical pump shotgun.
It is in near-mint condition, and has no serial numbers or record of existence. It cost $70, and was picked up from a friend of my father’s, whose father purchased it slightly before he died. It holds three rounds in the magazine, which is the maximum legal amount. With the removal of a short stick, it could hold five rounds.
My other shotgun, which cost $750, is a single-shot, break-action Miroku, imported by Charles Daley. It was made in 1974, has some lovely hand engraving, and is in 12 gauge. I use it for my hobby, trap shooting, by preference over the Mossberg. It has a 32" barrel, if I recall correctly, compared to the 28" barrel of the Mossberg.
For those unfamiliar, Miroku makes Brownings for America, and while both little known and japanese, is quite surprisingly excellent. No paperwork changed hands in the purchase of this shotgun, either.
I intend to purchase a Colt .45 off a friend in a while. I will need quite a bit of paperwork. Actually, if anyone knows what I’ll need, it’ll be handy. It’s currently at a range in Jersey, and has been since the 80s. I’ll need to transport it to NY, but not in NYC.
Oh, and I get my ammunition at Wal-Mart. $15 for 100 rounds, plus or minus. Bit less. I can go through that entire ‘brick’ in one day, easily. Though my shoulder regrets it later. I need some recoil protection, the original pad is quite harsh.
Any questions? Ask. It’s become obvious you don’t know much about guns, and we’re here to educate you the best we can.
Oh, and the point of the musket comment? I was referring to the rather extreme simplicity of design. It’s a metal tube with a lighter at the end.
One shot, reloaded by pouring gunpowder down the tube, adding wadding, ramming the bullet down. There is no rifling, which causes spin, in the gun, making it a smoothbore, not a rifle.
Most modern guns are considerably more complex at one end or the other. The family musket, provided she is in good repair, would be reasonably safe to fire, were she 400 years old. I wouldn’t want to pour too much gunpowder in her, though.
JR Brown is a gal. That’s why I brought up that my Wife thought about getting a firearm and we trained on our property with two of my pistols. My Wife was not comfortable with them. And did not seem to want to persue it. I did not, and would not force it.
That’s fine. Pepper spray is a good idea too for self protection.
I don’t have or want a CCW. Though I don’t want it taken away. I also don’t want those that know nothing about guns to come and ask me to register the guns I have.
I sit corrected. My wife doesn’t like firearms much either. But she’s been real open about learning to handle them, since I have enough of them to outfit a good sized 3rd World country. Basic safety means knowing how to use the 9mm on the bedpost.
E-Sabbath, technically it’s Dr Brown, but since I’m on a never-ending crusade to get my labmates to stop calling me that I’d rather go with JR Brown or JRB or just Brown or even “hey you”.
silenus, guns don’t scare me in and of themselves. I’d be uncomfortable handling one, the same way I’d be uncomfortable handling a chainsaw or a Synthes drill, because I’m not familiar with them. I am sure that if I ever felt the need to learn how to use one, I could.
What does bother me is the people who own the guns. Not necessarily all of them, but enough to give the class a bad name. Let me present an example and then I will explain in more detail.
Since I am a dog person, I’ll use the example of pit bulls. American Pit Bull Terriers are, as a class, perfectly nice dogs. If your personality and lifestyle match the breed’s need, they may be the ideal dog for you. There are many reputable breeders who can provide you with a puppy or an adult who will be a wonderful pet and lifelong companion. But if a person who I did not know well asked me for help in buying one, that person would be automatically suspect. There are enough pit bull owners, and wannabe pit bull owners, who are total assholes, that the first step in any such conversation would be convincing me that the person in question was not also an asshole.
Now my point of view on gun advocates, using posters here as convenient examples (everyone, please don’t take offense, or at least please wait to be offended until you have read the last couple of paragraphs ).
There are a number of attitudinal markers of a violent culture. Opinions rage over whether these are products or causes, but there is a correlation of endemic violence with:
[ol]
[li]distrust of institutional authority, leading to a tendency to take personal action on grievances; [/li]
[li]overestimation of the actual risk of situations, such that a larger proportion of confrontations are perceived as physically threatening; [/li]
[li]greater propensity to respond to perceived threats in an aggressive manner; [/li]
[li]association of personal liberty and empowerment with the ability to directly inflict damage (whether physical or otherwise) on perceived transgressors;[/li]
[li]strong positive association to “in-group” and negative association to “out-group”, leading to “us vs them” mentality;[/li]
[li]a (related) tendency to protect or avenge family or friends against authority and outsiders regardless of the legal or moral status of the protectee’s actions;[/li]
[li]a culture of “honor” with much concern over how one’s actions and other’s responses affect one’s status and “face”.[/ol][/li]
I would say that the first four of these attitudes are common among gun advocates (or anti-gun-control advocates), or at least the more vocal and visible ones. All four have been demonstrated here:
Attitude 1: Stealth Potato and E-Sabbath have been vocal in their distrust of and dislike for the police in their home areas and elsewhere. It is entirely possible that both of them are part of citizen groups tirelessly working to oust egregious individuals, establish community oversight, and otherwise improve the quality of local policing, but their comments here exclusively advocate the “do-it-yourself” approach.
The first three attitudes, and particularly 2 and 3, are strongly implied in the “self-defense” opinions posted here. See, for example, post 182:
Let me repeat that: being in public without a gun in is being “defenseless”. I am assuming Stealth Potato is exaggerating his opinions for the sake of effect, but still, how does this comment reflect on his subjective estimation of risk? Seattle has a lower crime rate than Boston, and I have never felt particularly unsafe here, even walking alone at 4AM after missing the last bus home (admittedly I usually stick to the larger and better-lit streets, and my route encompasses only some mildly shabby neighborhoods and not the real crime centers).
If you do get mugged, the chances that your life is in danger, and that deadly force is justified, is still pretty slim. The overwhelming majority of criminals don’t actually want to hurt you, they just want the money. Give them your freakin’ wallet; it’s less trouble to replace your credit cards than to convince a judge that it was justifiable homicide.
Attitude four is pretty much the theme of half the posts in this thread. I personally have been the victim of violent crime, though not in this country. I do not feel that I would have been safer or that my personal liberty would have been improved by the option of exercising deadly force, or even potentially deadly force, against the perpetrators. I am more than happy to leave that to the police (and yes, in toto I trust the Boston police more than the average guy with a gun. They may not be the perfect police force but they’re decent).
Where am I going with this, you ask? Two directions: first, whatever the cause-effect relationship of these attitudes to violence, once they exist they are self-perpetuating; in order to reduce violence in such a society, these attitudes have to be eradicated. Secondly, once these attitudes are in place violence tends to escalate. All of the people in this forum may be models of calm and restraint that have never raised their hand in anger. But the positions that have been claimed here are reflections of cultural and personal mores that can, in the right circumstances, be profoundly dangerous to the public well-being.
I have lived in countries where the attitudes given above were common to the point of being nearly universal. I have had neighbors whose relatives attempted to kill judges and lawyers after losing trivial court cases. I have known people whose relatives shielded murderers and kidnappers solely because they were family. Furthermore, (and this is the part that, so far, does not apply to the US) the local “man-on-the-street” response to these events was for the most part disapproval and head-shaking rather than outrage. There are also, obviously, areas and subcultures within the US where these attitudes, and the associated behaviors, are common. I do not wish to see them spread. (poll: how many of the pro-gun posters here come from the South?)
As I said previously, I see guns as tools that are capable of substantial misuse. I feel they should be regulated along the same lines as any other item or substance capable of similar misuse. I do not believe that the 2nd Amendment should grant them special protection because I believe the conditions that made the 2nd Amendment desirable in 1787 no longer apply. People here have responded with arguments to the contrary, but none that I find compelling.
In summary, I disagree with your goals and I find your arguments suspect. Certain readers doubtless hold the same opinion of me. It is likely that some people here find the attitudes listed above perfectly reasonable given the circumstances, and feel that disputing their veracity is a sign of mindlessness or complacency on my part.
Debates surrounding any sufficiently contentious topic tend to boil down to people’s core beliefs and their irrational prejudices (“irrational” in the sense of “not arrived at through conscious reasoning”, not in the sense of “crazy”; sometimes it seems English doesn’t have a big enough vocabulary). I support abortion and human embryonic stem cell research; I oppose the death penalty. I have had many fruitless discussions of these topics with people who are ardently on the other side. I do not think anyone is going to change their mind because of this post. I just want to point out that, from my perspective, you are asking me to support you in your quest to find a pit bull puppy, and when I ask why, you talk about your desire to have a big aggressive guard dog. You haven’t actually proved that you are a dog-torturing scumbag, but then again, you haven’t given me any evidence that you are not.
Before responding to your points directly, I would like to at least attempt to articulate what I see as a fundamental difference in our approaches to the issue.
First, understand that to a person like me, a gun is a tool and a perfectly neutral object. It has no capacity for violence - that requires the conscious action of a human being. A gun is a dangerous tool by its very nature, but it’s up to the individual how to wield it. There’s no denying that a lot of violence is committed using firearms in this country, but to my mind, trying to regulate the objects rather than the behavior is a misguided approach to the problem, not least because it impairs my ability to conduct my own lawful activities.
And that’s what it’s really all about, in the end - not only do I feel that “gun control” is an ineffective response to violence, I feel that its effectiveness is not even an issue. If a measure infringes upon civil rights, it should not be considered an appropriate response to whatever it purported to address. You could just as well argue for heavily restricting freedom of speech on the grounds that you could thereby stamp out the production and trafficking of child pornography - you might be correct, and your goal might be a good one, but the ends don’t justify the means.
For that matter, you could just as well argue that free speech and freedom of religion are outdated and unnecessary. It’s all a matter of perspective - you think that a right I value strongly is outdated, but what is it that gives your view weight over mine? We have different values and therefore different views of the problem. That is why we adopted a system of government that attempts to balance different views with the rights of individuals. This is also why my personal view is that in general, a person’s ability to exercise their rights should not be impaired until such exercise impairs the rights of others. My ownership of firearms does not impair anyone’s rights.
I guess you could sum up my view as Liberty before Security, but that seems to imply that I don’t really value security - I do, very highly. The exercise of liberty is rather difficult without it! And while I do feel that security must never preempt liberty, I am also optimistic that the threats to our security from violent crime can be addressed effectively without damaging our liberty.
I don’t advocate a “do-it-yourself” approach - I merely advocate limits on the powers vested in institutional authority commensurate with our nation’s well-established legal limits on the responsibility of that authority. As I’ve pointed out, the government and the police have no duty to protect you. Even if they had a clear and present opportunity to protect you, but through total disregard they allow others to bring you to harm, you cannot sue them.
And in case you haven’t noticed, there is an increasing tendency towards excessive violence in those same institutional authorities - mostly in the name of that oh-so-necessary “war on drugs.” I think my mistrust of them is quite thoroughly justified simply given recent history. But even considering their otherwise useful role in our society, why should we not be skeptical? These institutional authorities must always be at the will of and subservient to the people - trusting 'em any farther than we can kick 'em would be dangerous.
(As a side note, let me also say that I don’t dislike police; all the cops I know or have met or otherwise interacted with were perfectly nice people. This is not in conflict with my feeling that it is always necessary to scrutinize and question their authority, which is, in my opinion, only a natural American attitude, given our history. :))
This all comes down to the role of police in our society. Their job is to help keep the peace and improve community safety by reacting to criminal activity. Their capacity for preventative action is entirely incident to their coincidental presence at the scene of a crime in progress, or their timely (and optional) response to one that is reported. The government and the police are not caretakers - they are not responsible for our security. So from my point of view, “Safety” is not ever a justification for the expansion of police powers.
What is wrong with self-defense, exactly? Whatever weapons we’re talking about - guns, knives, clubs, fists - it seems obvious to me that a person should be able to act to preserve their safety if attacked. I don’t follow when you say that advocating self-defense implies overstatement of risk and tendency to toward aggression. Indeed, I’m amazed I would even have to say something like “advocating self-defense” - how could anyone not advocate it? (Aside from a few religious nuts, of course. :D)
Well, you are right to accuse me of exaggerating somewhat - being without a gun certainly does not leave one defenseless, although it does leave one’s options rather short, since many cities prohibitively regulate other weapons such as knives - pepper spray is certainly better than nothing, but it’s not really an effective way to stop an assault.
And let me assure you, since you have made several references to “paranoia” in this thread: I do not in any way feel unsafe walking the streets of Seattle without a gun. When I am carrying a gun, it does not imbue me with any sense of invulnerability - any place that I would avoid when unarmed, I will also avoid while armed, although if circumstances compel me to travel such an area on foot (for example, if I miss the last bus at 2 in the morning), I think it is quite reasonable that I would prefer to be armed.
Carrying a gun doesn’t make me feel “safe” any more than putting on my seatbelt makes me feel “safe.” In both cases I know that not only am I still quite capable of being violently killed, the absolute best way for me to ensure my safety is to make sensible decisions to avoid risk. The gun, like the seatbelt, is a last resort if everything else goes wrong. For me, the choice to carry a gun is a rational decision based on two facts: 1) carrying a gun causes me no trouble at all and no significant risk, since I am competent in safe handling, and 2) in the unlikely event that I ever do need a gun to defend myself, the consequences of being without one would be dire. To put it simply, carrying a gun is a simple and easy preparation for a very unlikely threat that has very significant consequences.
I have a similar view of protecting one’s home: a shotgun and a fire extinguisher are two tools every home should have, and every person should be able and prepared to use them, and should ardently hope that they are never compelled to do so.
And I agree - I would much rather hand over my wallet than shoot a mugger, so long as I feel I can do so safely. Keeping a wad of cash handy that you can toss to the ground in front of the attacker while making good your escape is a great strategy, for example.
But this isn’t a good argument for allowing the government to restrict an individual’s right to defense. If a woman is raped, the chance that her life is in danger is relatively low also - does that mean she should submit rather than resist? Where do you draw the line?
But for that matter, most of the nitty-gritty debate about self-defense here seems to be with regard to what each individual considers best for themselves in terms of risk management, etc. I mean, it’s all well and good to discuss our personal opinions regarding the matter, but I don’t feel any need to try to convince you to carry a gun or what have you. It’s a personal decision - the government has no business regulating our individual risk behaviors. Even if you suppose that showing a tangible benefit to society would justify restricting the right to self-defense, thus far nobody has done so. Really I feel no need to argue with you on this score. :o
And you have not given me any evidence that you do not strive to subvert American civil rights and institute a tyrannical government. :dubious:
How are such accusations productive? We have a system that was built with the intent of ensuring the rights of the people, in the belief that those rights are inherent, and not merely exceptions to presumed government authority.
But whatever the paper says, when it comes down to it, I and millions of Americans strongly believe that every individual has a right to be armed, and we will no more give up that right than give up our right to freely speak our minds, our right to be held innocent until proven guilty by due process of law, or our right to worship whatever imaginary entities we choose.
… Whew! I never intended to write that much, honest! Anyway, I just want you to know that I have no hard feelings about our disagreements - we obviously have very different viewpoints, but hey, it’s our right to blather on as much as we like.
And to further exercise my rights, tomorrow I’m heading to the local gun store to buy a classic World War II-era Mosin-Nagant M44 Carbine. With a folding bayonet, too, which probably makes it some kind of horrible “assault weapon” according to the Brady Bunch.
Well, dammit, I missed the %*$!ing bus again, so maybe I’ll share some of my gun anecdotes.
<rant>
I had about four hours worth of work today, but of course because the %! mice have no %*! sense of time it had to happen between 9PM and 1AM rather than, say, 1 to 5PM. The %! bloody damn mice get their %*! breeding schedules %*!ed up every %*!ing winter. How they KNOW it is winter is beyond me seeing as they live in a sterile filtered climate controlled Barrier Facility ™, but they do.
</rant>
Background: Mom likes to travel (I hate it); when I was very little we went all over South America (of which I remember nothing). When I was 9 she bought a house in Puerto Vallarta, which was still pretty much just a fishing village at the time (now it’s an enormous tourist trap - still one of the better destinations on the West Coast) (avoid Mazatlan like the plague; it’s ugly as sin. A strip of beach bordered by high-rise hotels surrounded by concrete slums). Once the place started to give itself over utterly to tourism we rented out the house and started pottering around the backwoods in various rattletrap vehicles (just the two of us; Dad was long out of the picture, but this was before Stepdad).
Leaving aside various tense moments involving police and military who could not believe that a couple of American tourists would spontaneously decide to visit Little Armpit of Saint Sebastian of the Hole in the Wall, Oaxaca, and that something suspicious HAD to be going on* (some of the most historic and traditional parts of Mexico are dirt poor, and poor regions tend to have a lot of drug-related activity, and are therefore swarming with law enforcement - so if you want to see the Real Mexico it helps to brush up on Being Polite to Cops), there’s about three times in my life when someone has pointed a gun at me who I thought might realistically use it.
(*American border guards had the exact same attitude - once we were hung up in El Paso for about ten hours while they literally took our rustbucket truck to pieces.)
In chronological order, when I was fifteen or so and we were passing through some town I don’t remember en route to a destination I don’t recall (older road networks in Mexico tend to have no real distinction between highways and local roads; up until about ten or fifteen years ago major arteries ran right through small towns, with chickens and cows meandering along the tarmac), we got held up by a bunch of scruffy guys with rifles (or maybe not - long guns anyway, not handguns) (bunch = 5-6 men, 4-5 guns). This is probably the most boring highway robbery anecdote ever; they demanded money, we gave them our cash, they demanded cameras, we explained we didn’t have any, they debated taking the truck, we pointed out that it was an antiquated diesel beast that cost more to keep running than it was worth (seriously - whenever it needed repair something had to be jury-rigged or ordered from the US), they talked a bunch of trash about how America was trying to take over the world and Americans were a bunch of crooks and so forth, we politely agreed. At first they kept poking us with the rifles to emphasize their points, but we stayed calm and friendly and the tension materially decreased. They eventually got bored or nervous that a highway patrol would come through and left. Cost to us: about $30 in cash and an hour delay in our travel plans.
Second, when I was sixteen and we had settled for the moment in a medium-sized town in Central Mexico, one Sunday morning I took our 8-month old German Shepherd puppy walking on a nearby hill behind the local private elementary school (it was sort of an artsy town with a fair population of foreigners and escapees from Mexico City who expected more of an education for their kids than the public school system would provide). This hill had a fairly low-usage walking path that lead to the next town over. About halfway up the hill two middle-aged men came up the path behind us; since small-town Mexicans tend to be afraid of large dogs, as a courtesy I leashed the dog and pulled him off the path. The men had guns (dunno what kind; smaller than a breadbox, squareish, black). They demanded money. I wasn’t carrying any, since I was just walking the dog. They kept us going up the hill, repeatedly demanding money, I kept explaining that I didn’t have any money. They raped me, then they let me go. I wasn’t afraid for myself (pissed, yes, humiliated, yes, but not afraid), but I was scared that they might shoot the dog (he was big, even though he was a baby and a softie, and they were visibly wary of him). For some reason the local police decided that this was connected with the murder of a local businessman that happened a few days later (why I dunno, except that it involved two men with guns, and I was assaulted by two men with guns, so it must be the same two men, right?), and so I had endless interviews with the federal police who had been called in on the latter (they had me go through book after book of local soccer club team photos and high-school class photos on the off-chance that one of the perps was in them :rolleyes: ). Nothing ever came of either investigation, that I know of.
Third, after Mom married Stepdad, who was an utter moron (I love my mother, but her taste in men is execrable), we took a trip to some tiny village nearby (Mom probably heard it had hot springs; she looooves hot springs). On the way back we stopped for a late lunch at a little roadside restaurant (translation: someone who was a good cook decided to make a few pesos by putting a table on the front porch and painting a sign on the wall). The other patrons were a group of locals who were quietly getting drunk (a favored pastime in small villages - for men only, of course; letting your women get drunk is a disgrace to the familia). Stepdad, being a jerk, of course got into some kind of argument or pissing match with one of the guys. When we left, we had to drive partway down the hill to find enough space to turn around. On the way back up the hill, as we passed the restaurant, the guy in question (quite drunk) stuck his head through the window along with a rickety little antique revolver that probably dated back to the (Mexican) revolutionary war (we were going pretty slow because of the aforementioned livestock-in-the-road issue - the restaurant family had chickens) and told us he was going to shoot us all because of the insult Stepdad had rendered him by saying I’m-not-sure-what-exactly (between him being drunk and the local accent I still don’t know what the argument was about). Stepdad (did I mention that he was a moron?) immediately started challenging the guy to fight him, telling him that he was a wimp (a much worse insult in Spanish) and didn’t have the guts to shoot anybody, and generally making an idiot of himself, and they started shouting at each other (Stepdad still in the car and drunk guy halfway in and waving the gun around like mad). Fortunately us girls managed to get Stepdad to sit down and shut up, soothed drunk guy’s wounded feelings, gave him some money to buy beer as a token of apology, and got the hell out of there.
There was some other stuff I wasn’t physically present for (while I was in college Stepdad got himself kidnapped by running off his mouth about how much money he made and spent three days chained to a tree - what pissed him off the most was that the kidnappers only gave him bread and water while they had carnitas and beer), but this post is long enough already. (And yes, Mom eventually dumped Stepdad, so there’s a happy ending.)
So my survival tips for What to Do When You’re in Mexico and Someone Points a Gun At You: stay calm, stay polite, do not do anything to escalate the situation, agree with whatever the guy with the gun says, give him whatever he wants, make friendly conversation if necessary. It helps to be female, since we’re less likely to be seen as a threat, especially in a macho culture like Mexico, but we’ve met plenty of older male expat hippies who have gotten through far hairier situations unscathed simply by being “good with people”.
Finally, a funny gun anecdote: we were in some town in Guatemala and decided to take a walk in the woods along the river. Coming the other way along the path was a military patrol in uniform, on foot with rifles over their shoulders, who politely but firmly told us it was unsafe to leave the town and that we had to go back. While talking to them we realized the guns were only painted wood - the government was to poor to buy them real guns.
Sorry for the rambling, but I’m a little sleep deprived. Tune in next week for more Stories From My Bizarre Childhood!
Could you cite where anyone here has taken personal action on a grievance, or responded to a perceived threat in an aggressive manner? Thanks in advance. I am also not sure what your anecdotes of high drug-trafficking areas in Mexico, or in Guatemala, have to do with the Second Amendment.
GREAT SCOTT!
Terribly sorry, but the urge was overwhelming.
A bit of the former, I do my part, but most of my distrust and dislike is based on good old Sturgeon’s Law. 90% of everything is crap. From the policeman who responded to a report of computers stolen by rounding up all the people who worked in a location and repeately accusing the lone mexican (who happened to be the director of said AIDS treatment program) to the cop gunrunning to crooks in my home town, cops are people. And, sadly, some are good and honest, some are scum, and most just want to get through the day.
Cops have no responsibility to protect citizens. Their oversight is just about null in small towns, and a culture of corruption is easily established, especially if you are a stranger. (and you can be a stranger if you moved in 20 years ago.)
However, I blame speeding tickets for the general confrontational attitude between police and citizens. There is always an excuse for a cop to harrass a citizen now, and the great majority of citizen-police interactions are now negative due to it.
Rather not. Been mugged a few times. Been cut the one time I tried to give them my wallet. Fuck that shit. Rather just deal with them as hostile to start with.
I trust 'em. Don’t you?
At least, I trust them to be human. I just don’t know what part of the human spectrum I’m going to run into.
I’m sorry you misunderstand the traditional yankee distrust of authority, and have confused it for a more generalized resentment.
New Yorker. Family’s been here long enough to have the Pilgrims tear down our church. We’ve been fighting for our rights to be left alone ever since.
Sorry to hear that. Again, the point of the matter is, I could make an argument against all the amendments that way. The Government has already violated the Fourth repeatedly. See: wiretapping immunity issues. And, to be honest, no matter how much I agree with it, the McCain-Feingold limits on free speech also violate it.
It would be simpler to say that the conditions that make all the amendments desirable in 1787 no longer apply. But they’re still the supreme law of the land. Dare you to change 'em.
Nah, there’s always room to disagree. You clearly have reasons to do so. Just because we disagree doesn’t make you a blind and foolish person. Just one who isn’t used to guns, doesn’t understand them, and has seen the worse side of the world. Frankly, I’m not pleased with the ‘stop snitchin’ culture, myself. It is, however, an understandable backlash to the increasing police intrusion. Again, I blame the drug war for ghettoizing the drug trade. But that’s a separate issue, isn’t it?
Now, this I have a problem with. (Specious, perhaps? Arbitrary?) Some of us have core beliefs and prejudices arrived at through irrational means, then carefully examined and weeded through experience. Some of our core beliefs were even arrived at through rational means. With this statement, you give yourself license to simply ignore anyone who does not think like you. This way lies factionalism, partisanship, and general ill behavior. It is unwise. Really, one must battle thesis and antithesis, or how will synthesis ever be formed to start with?
Interestingly enough, I’m a Standard Poodle sort.
I suppose that shows a tendency to follow the path of Don Quixote.
Have you ever considered that judging people as scumbags without evidence is possibly part of the problem, rather than part of the solution?
Missed edit window.
Edit: I should note that I work with police, (I work as IT for a network of substance treatment centers.), I shoot with police, (who are, generally, the only ones who should be trusted around a gun. When it’s range qualifying time, everyone stays the hell away. Most cops are freaking dangerous with a pistol. And not in a good way.) and I sail with police. I may even be going upstate to fire experimental automatic weapons with police.
I don’t dislike policemen based on their job. I just have accepted that not all who wear the badge wear it for noble reasons. Even if they did when they joined the force. Police are human beings, just like everyone else.
I am terribly sorry for your personal experiences. Dr. Brown. That said, I see no way to explain things that could not be taken as personal affronts to you.
Simply said, I feel that Mexico is not the United States, that people who are foreign to a location are always in added danger, and that your stepfather was certainly a good way to personalize the feelings you have about violence and machismo.
I am not saying that incidents such as have occurred to you would not have happened in the United States, but I do trust the police would have worked somewhat harder on the matter.
Hm. No, honestly, you do seem to have removed all possibility for debate by expressing a personal ancedote. The closest I can honestly say is that I am not nearly the pacifist you are. It would have been nice if it were possible to tell the mexican men to go away and stop bothering you, wouldn’t it?
This thread was a follow up to a thread I started here In GQ. As it turns out, the DC law is not so much about CCW, but the right to own a gun at all. So it spiraled to here, in GD about the second amendment. No surprise there I guess.
JRB - My Wife and I are dog people too. I’ve had a dog (s) all my life. We have two great pups now (they are all great IMHO) They are great fun, but take a lot of work, and are a hell of a lot more expensive than a gun. As an added bonus, they provide security as watch dogs. If something or someone comes near the house, they are usually the first to know.
Our girls (doggies) may even defend us if push comes to shove. They are at least a deterrent to any one that might want to do us harm. For us, that’s a bonus.
The guns I own are the same way. Though the guns don’t need belly rubs every day.
You’ve made a comparison between dogs and guns.
Any asshole can buy a dog. Not true with guns.
Again, a .22 can be used to target shoot, hunt or murder. So can a .375H&R magnum.
I going to make a guess that the common 9mm semi auto has caused the most gun deaths in the last 20 years or so in the US. Most of which are gang related.
The 9mm is a popular round/pistol. Though the 9mm is far from the most powerful. Should the 9mm be banned?
I still don’t understand your position JRB Do you want to ban guns that are too ‘powerful’? Or are you just against CCW.
If you want to ban certain guns, can you be more specific? In your opinion, what guns should be banned? Not in the general sense. But by specific type, round/caliber.
).
