And you’ll be less likely to need it if there’s stronger gun control. Registration. As I already asked, the mental health industry isn’t on to you yet, right? You’re not a felon? Good.
Before this is hand waved away by the usual suspects, I just wanted to say that I agree completely.
Actually, last I checked, it is a right.
I am matter-of-fact about shooting to kill because LEGALLY that is the only thing that exists. There is no such thing as going into court and saying “I shot him in the leg because I was only shooting to wound… sorry he bled out anyway…”
It’s not a matter of what I think. Those are the laws that govern the use of lethal force.
Which, as I have pointed before, accomplishes squat.
If I own the gun illegally, and us it for a crime, you’ve solved nothing. If I own the gun legally, register it, and still use if for a crime… you’ve still solved nothing.
Not once have I heard anyone explain to me what problem registration is supposed to fix. In virtually every one of these massacres, the guns were legally owned. How would registering those guns have solved anything at all?
Before I give up and go to bed: An article that explains at length why doing anything other than “Shooting to kill” makes no sense in the real world.
“In reality, this thinking is a result of ‘training by Hollywood,’ in which movie and TV cops are able to do anything to control the outcomes of events that serve the director’s dramatic interests. It reflects a misconception of real-life dynamics and ends up imposing unrealistic expectations of skill on real-life officers.”
Vice President Joe Biden agrees. When Michael Paladino, president of New York’s Detectives Endowment Association, showed him the bill he reportedly scoffed and suggested that it be called the “John Wayne Bill” because of the unrealistic, movie-like sharpshooting skills it demands of officers.
I see… You get to decide.
Let’s try another right - the right to serve in the armed forces of the United States.
Your mandatory responsibilies are to:
a) Register for the draft.
b) Serve if called.
I did both. Are you telling me I could have treated those as voluntary responsibilities?
Gun ownership is a “right” in the sense that we have the “right” to pay income tax. It’s not on the same ideological level of free speech, press, religion, due process, vote, etc. I think we shouldn’t sacrifice the safety, morality, and sanity of our nation at the expense of an archaic technicality.
Secondly I have no solutions for the clusterfuck of a situation that the gun issue presently exists. The quagmire is simply too deep for anyone to extricate us from. Chris Rock jokes aside, the best idea I have heard of would be to enact stringent bullet control.
Look, if you want to have a gun at home for home defense, I have no problems with that. Keep a registered gun with the first bullet a dud and next ones live and I’m fine with that. Be smart and responsible. Sure. Want a second gun? Want multiple guns? Want semi-autos? Want full autos? That’s an escalation that I have problems with. Horde ammunition for the inevitable uprising against big brother? I have a problem with that. Extended clips. The list goes on. The proliferation of the gun industry has bloated to a level that is just criminally insane. The volume of the guns produced and the market for it is unsettling to say the least and that doesn’t even go to the ferocity with which gun enthusiasts defend their hobby.
-
A “round” is one shot, for the record.
-
I sleep a little easier knowing there are people like like Solosam who are willing and able to stop violent attack. Society as a whole can often prevail where the individual cannot.
Take a look at this:
“I’m not a strong gun-advocate person,” he said. “I don’t know if I could pull that trigger…"
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/springboro-schools-to-consider-arming-staff-with-g/nTrJN/
Be assured, there are people in this world than can and would “pull that trigger” if their kids were about to be murdered. They fear it, and they hope beyond hope that the day never comes when that have to, but they sure as heck can and will do it if it means saving innocent lives. There was a time, even in my lifetime, when this was just what was expected. If someone tries to kill you or your family, you rise to the occasion and at least try to do what must be done. The opposite used to have a name. We called it “cowardice.” The world has surely changed. Now a School Supernitendent can publicly state that “I don’t know if I could pull that trigger” while his students are being murdered, and we consider that a reasonable position.
I am saddened.
In general, aperson is only justified in drawing a gun if his life is in IMMEDIATE danger, so if he draws his weapon, he’d better be prepared to use it. What happens to the attacker after I aim my gun at him is 100% up to him. If he turns and runs away, I won’t shoot. If he freezes, I won’t shoot so long as he does EXACTLY what I say until the police arrive. But if he doesn’t stop immediately, I WILL shoot, and I will keep shooting unil he either retreats or goes down. And in the latter case, there’s a good chance he’ll die, because the point of impact that’s most likely to quickly stop an attacker is where the heart and a lot of big blood vessels sit.
And there are plenty of documented cases of a person taking as many as six or eight shots in the center torso before they collapse. So, no, one or two bullets are nowhere near enough. If things have reached the point where I’m shooting, it’s the attacker’s life versus mine, and I need enough rounds to ensure it won’t be mine. Six is the absolute bare minimum I’d want (and I’d carry a speed loader or second magazine in that case so I could reload in a hurry if I had to.)
Real defensive gun use in’t like the movies. Not at all.
“The first bullet a dud”? What in the name of anything rational are you talking about?
I will repeat solosam’s quote:
“It is abjectely terrifying to me that the future of firearms in this country is being decided by people who have no concept of how they are realistically or properly employed.”
Other than the fact that you don’t like guns, what is wrong with having multiple guns, if having one is okay? One gun is plenty dangerous enough in the hands of a psychopath - you’re not going to stop mass shootings by limiting people to owning one gun. So what is the purpose of this restriction, other than your thinking that guns are bad and that any law that limits the number of guns must therefore be good?
The dude has his gun hanging on his wall. What’s the stats on being shot with your own gun again?
I don’t think I should sacrifice my freedom and safety because you think you are entitled to tell me what my rights are. This is a free country. “Freedom” to me means that I should be free to do what I want as long as I am not harming others. My ownership of a gun is not harming anyone else. How is it right in a free country for me to be forced to give up my gun because you don’t like guns?
You tell me. My gun is on the desk in front of me at the moment, plus one on the wall.
I’ll make odds that I don’t shoot myself over, say, the next two years, if you like. (I’d make a bet over the rest of my life, but I don’t want to wait that long to get paid.) It’s not really that hard for a responsible adult to NOT shoot himself. I haven’t done it once in 47 years, despite always being around guns and carrying guns. Guns aren’t some scary death machines that jump up and kill their owners.
The mother in the Newtown case was shot with her own gun. Maybe if it was in a safe she and everyone else would be alive, no?
Again, what’s the stats on being killed with your own gun? Does carrying a gun protect you?
"I don’t like alcohol. I think it’s stupid and it leads to death, violence, disease and misery.
Look, if you want to have a beer at home to relax, I have no problems with that. Be smart and responsible. Want a second drink? Want multiple drinks? Want tequila? Want vodka? Want mixed drinks? That’s an escalation that I have problems with. Hoard drinks so you can have a big drunken fucking orgy with all your raging alcoholic friends? A whole cellar full of wine? I have a problem with that. Drinking games. The list goes on. The proliferation of the alcohol industry has bloated to a level that is just criminally insane. Do you know how many die each year as a result of alcohol consumption? 100,000. 3x more than are killed by guns. The volume of alcohol produced and the market for it is unsettling to say the least."
Now, doesn’t that post sound outrageous and ridiculous? You might say “WTF, my alcohol consumption isn’t harming anyone, I don’t drive drunk, I’ve never assaulted anyone in a drunken rage and I’m not likely to, why should I limit my alcohol consumption because of what some other asshole did?”
Well, this is exactly how gun owners react when they read posts like yours.
You don’t like guns. I get it. If you don’t see the value of guns, then even 1 death from guns per year is too much. The problem is - there are 100,000,000 million people out there who do like guns, or appreciate their value anyway, and who own and use those guns in a totally safe and responsible manner. Who are you to say that those people should all give them up because you don’t like guns and don’t see any value in them?
Are we talking about me, or not? You’re smart enough to know that statistics can be biased to support a pre-conceived outcome. For example, a few years ago, although I carried a gun, I was probably more likely to be murdered than you, because SOME GUY WAS TRYING TO KILL ME. (That’s one of the reasons I carried a gun.)
Name your odds that I shoot myself over the next two years.
The Newtown mother was shot by her son, not herself. Other people can use your gun.
Yes, all stats on the internet are made up and meaningless. 4x more likely to be shot then someone unarmed means you are safer.
And back to a more realistic discussion:
Yes. If I had a son living with me who had exhibited mental difficulties, I’d be damn sure to be more secure with my gun storage. Maybe not even own guns at all. But I don’t. So why penalize me, and make me less safe, because of what happened in this situation?
You said this: “The dude has his gun hanging on his wall. What’s the stats on being shot with your own gun again?”
So far the stats are zero, and I am so confident that they will continue to be so that I am willing to participate in a wager, at any reasonable odds, that you propose.
If I misunderstood, and didn’t mean me, but solosman instead, I’ll still listen to what you think the odds are. So far I guess his stats are the same as mine.
solosam, have you ever accidently shot yourself?