Discimination against gun owners

After being called a "hick", being referred to as someone who doesn't belong in the "civilized world, and other such things by worthless fucks like Gwahir, I got to wondering:

How many of you suffer discrimination because of your political beliefs?

Most of the time, it happens whenever I mention RKBA, or get involved in any [pro/anti] gun debate.
People start getting offensive, they make wild accusations, and insult you. This is all based on the fact that you hold a certain political belief, and you own a certain type of machine.

On the internet, half of the time, they make racist comments, assuming that I'm a lower class white person.


It's funny, I remember when tolerance meant respecting another's right to his beliefs, while disagreeing strongly.

I don't know when it changed to what it is today; "You have to agree with me, or you're a closed minded, ignorant hick!"


Anyway, have at it.

Gwahir actually said that stuff about you? 'Cause back in the LWS days, he participated in numerous gun-related debates with me, and even though he disagrees with me very strongly about guns, he was always quite decent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Gwahir actually said that stuff about you? 'Cause back in the LWS days, he participated in numerous gun-related debates with me, and even though he disagrees with me very strongly about guns, he was always quite decent.

---

Well it's not so much about Gwahir than it is about people in general who do this.
My experience and the thread is not limited to Gwahir, I just used him as an example of people.
As such, it's not about him, but about people who do similar things.

Well being in Alabama helps as far as not being discriminated against irl, but on the internet I catch shit for my views on gun ownership pretty regularly. As far as other political beliefs are concerned, I live in Alabama, so my views on homosexuality and most religion based issues usually aren't smiled upon irl. On the internets, my political views on pretty much everything else don't go over too well.

I really don't care if anyone disagrees with me, that's their right, but what you said about people making assumptions about you just because of your stance on an issue is pretty spot on.

I got called bloodthirsty one time by some douche at my school.

He basically inferred that I was just a murderer trying to kill someone the legal way.

I mean, who the hell says that?
Honestly? I just told him that being alive is one of my rights as a human being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bacon ops

Well it's not so much about Gwahir than it is about people in general who do this.
My experience and the thread is not limited to Gwahir, I just used him as an example of people.
As such, it's not about him, but about people who do similar things.

---

But if you're using Gwahir as an example of that kind of person, then he must have said something similar to the things you're complaining about. I'm curious about what he said that would make you use him as an example of people who insult and discriminate against those with pro-gun beliefs, since in my experience, he's never really done that. It seems to me that if you are going to call another poster a "worthless fuck" in the first sentence of your thread, he must have said something pretty awful to you. So what was it?

As for the thread's question: I don't know if I've ever been "discriminated against" as a gun owner; I've had people make insulting inferences about my character and so forth, but I wouldn't really call that discrimination. I find that when someone makes such inferences about you, the best thing to do is to stay cool, address their argument intelligently, and put the lie to their assumption. Anyone who is making such assumptions about gun owners can't have too good an argument anyway, so it should be easy to pick apart and make them look like the unreasonable one.

I agree that people are quick to call someone closed minded but won't hear any of your side.

Gwahir has made rash comments in the past, but seems to be a rational person at heart. Of course, it is hard to judge someone over the internet but through a series of PMs last year we came to terms, so to speak, and agreed to disagree on some things while gaining insight into others.

I have rarely encountered someone who walks away with a discriminatory stereotype about me in real life. I can talk all day, and they might think I am insane, but they will not think I am another mindless redneck. A big thing I have encountered online is the type of person that hides behind a keyboard; not caring for rational discussion but rather just sitting in the shadows waiting to troll an otherwise good subject, without even the courtesy to reply to counterarguments. If they used the same approach in real life, it would result in severe bleeding.

I love people who think a site like this is about serious discussions and get offended when people can't be bothered using statistics or even basic rationale because, to them, the internet is just a way to waste time between sleep, food and more sleep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simonj

I love people who think a site like this is about serious discussions and get offended when people can't be bothered using statistics or even basic rationale because, to them, the internet is just a way to waste time between sleep, food and more sleep.

---

...is the internet something more than that to people who DON'T have an interest in serious discussions?

When talking or debating firearms with those who hate and fear them it is often the case where the opposing side throws out irrational insults because they do not have enough knowledge to discuss the issue in an articulate manner. Next thing you know you're calling them commies and they are call you redneck hilljacks. That is why you never debate with an ignoramus, they just draw you down to their level and beat you with experience. :)

In real life, Hell yes. I've been yelled down by my entire English class last year; or, rather a few very loud students. Didn't help that the (self-defined ultra liberal) teacher didn't care to reign them in until I just sat back in stupor, shaking my head.
I have a few teachers with their heads on right, but that teacher and my Modern Wars teacher (who called me disrespectful for calling her out when she said that "Kurdish people" were a denomination of Islam) are damned annoying and anti-gun rights.

'Sfar as the internet goes, it seems a common misconception that most if not all gun lovers are white, and taught to "love" guns from birth.
In my case, both could not be farther from the truth.

I personally don't own guns, but my old roommate in college was one of the most pro-gun right wing people I've ever met. But I respected his decisions because he always had good reasoning to back them up. As long as you feel justified, who gives a fuck what anyone else thinks? It's all personal choices anyways. And if you don't have good reasons for it, don't broadcast it and get yourself in a discussion you can't win. If you do have good reasons, by all means, tell everyone you meet. But don't expect them to agree with you, if you want your opinions to be respected you need to respect other's opinions too.

Of course there will always be discrimintation against gun owners from idiot leftist morons, as there will always be discrimination against anti-gun individuals by moron rednecks. That's just the way it is. (I won't bother defending myself because well I don't really feel like I need to do so.) I think a lot of the perceived discrimination against gun owners is a "discrimination" -- I don't even like using the word -- against a type of individual who happens to own guns. I have nothing against people who own a gun, personally, and have considered investing in one myself. I do have something against people who are willing to put an importance on their own safety above others past a reasonable extent, and I do have something against people who are of the opinion that the only way out of a tense situation is with firepower, and I do have something against people who claim that intolerance is more common on one side of the debate than the other (because it seems fairly balanced that way to me).

My position on guns isn't that nobody should have them. My position on guns isn't that everyone who has them is a retarded hick. Several regular posters in this area of the forum are posters who have my highest regard, and they know who they are. My position on guns is a long-term position that is that a country like America which seems in places so reliant on old values of military might and pride and Having The Bigger Stick and property rights and protection rights would be better off, many years from now, on a more prohibitative position on guns. This is why I care so little about the statistics of crimes committed by CCP holders and so forth -- I don't think there'd be less gun crime in America if guns were more tightly controlled -- on the contrary, very possibly -- but I think that in the long run, your country will be a healthier society that does not glorify the ownership of firearms. And yes, if that means things get worse before they get better, I'm okay with that.

I think it should be recognised that owning a firearm is not something to champion oneself about. It's an ugly business if you have to own something designed purely for killing, although I respect that many people feel they have to. When we get into territory of self-righteous gun-owning pride, or "look at all the things I can kill with my new toy", it starts to worry me.

I could also outline my very sympathetic position on hunting, if anyone's interested, but you probably aren't.

Just a brief note on "respecting people's beliefs": I don't see why I have to respect anyone's belief if I find their beliefs horrifying.

I wouldn't respect the beliefs of a society that believes baby-eating is awesome. I don't respect the beliefs of scientologists (but I respect most of them as individuals who do not know the nature of the organisation of which they are members). I don't respect the beliefs of christians (but I respect most christians). I don't respect the beliefs of very conservative people, because of how harmful their beliefs (or the beliefs that I specifically do not respect) are to humanity.

If someone doesn't respect your beliefs, don't just yell them out for being "intolerant", because there's a shitload out there that we well should be intolerant of. Either try to convince them that your beliefs are good and decent or listen to why they don't respect your beliefs, because they might have a reason.

That is how we differ Gwahir, I can see things from most any point of view, whereas you seem to be unable to see past your own views. This is not intended to be an insult, it may make you a stronger individual than I, because I tend to sit back whereas someone with your temperament is more likely to stand up and act on their beliefs. I find it easy for me to respect everyones opinion because I would be more horrified by a world where everyone feels the same than by a world where people are constantly arguing.

Edit: And what I mean by that is, everyone holds their opinion because they believe it to be right. No one wakes up in the morning believing their opinions and beliefs are wrong. I'm just saying that I can respect that different lives allow us to see things differently, and I believe we are stronger for doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinysides

That is how we differ Gwahir, I can see things from most any point of view, whereas you seem to be unable to see past your own views. This is not intended to be an insult, it may make you a stronger individual than I, because I tend to sit back whereas someone with your temperament is more likely to stand up and act on their beliefs. I find it easy for me to respect everyones opinion because I would be more horrified by a world where everyone feels the same than by a world where people are constantly arguing.

---

...Well, as do I, but if what you're advocating is automatic acceptance of people's points of view on the basis of it being their point of view, you're advocating automatic acceptance of pro-baby-killing points of view. I'm not equating gun ownership with baby-eating, here, but making the point that it isn't such a horrible thing to recognise that not all points of view are valid, and not all should be accepted.

Your criticism (veilled as a compliment) aside, it's not closed-minded to be intolerant of views, as long as you've actually considered those views and come to an educated conclusion thereabout. It's closed-minded (or worse; absent-minded) to simply set back and allow everyone's opinion to be treated as equal.

We should stop discriminating against gun owners and go back to discriminating against blacks (who are ironically mostly gun owners).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

...Well, as do I, but if what you're advocating is automatic acceptance of people's points of view on the basis of it being their point of view, you're advocating automatic acceptance of pro-baby-killing points of view. I'm not equating gun ownership with baby-eating, here, but making the point that it isn't such a horrible thing to recognise that not all points of view are valid, and not all should be accepted.

Your criticism (veilled as a compliment) aside, it's not closed-minded to be intolerant of views, as long as you've actually considered those views and come to an educated conclusion thereabout. It's closed-minded (or worse; absent-minded) to simply set back and allow everyone's opinion to be treated as equal.

---

Less than one percent of people in the world are baby killers, you're nitpicking. I'm advocating acceptance of people's views because they have the right to have views. My point is not that everyone should have the right to do whatever they want, my point is that people should have the right to think however they want. Laws govern what you can and cannot do, and rightly so, for some people are sick and twisted, but laws cannot govern what you think or how you feel. Just because you have an opinion does not mean you have to act on it. And don't be so touchy, it wasn't criticism, it was meant as a compliment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

My position on guns is a long-term position that is that a country like America which seems in places so reliant on old values of military might and pride and Having The Bigger Stick and property rights and protection rights would be better off, many years from now, on a more prohibitative position on guns. This is why I care so little about the statistics of crimes committed by CCP holders and so forth -- I don't think there'd be less gun crime in America if guns were more tightly controlled -- on the contrary, very possibly -- but I think that in the long run, your country will be a healthier society that does not glorify the ownership of firearms. And yes, if that means things get worse before they get better, I'm okay with that.

---

I'm interested to hear more about this. If you don't think that less gun ownership would lead to less crime, in what way would it lead to a healthier society? What does "healthy" mean here? Or when you suggest that things might get worse before getting better, do you mean that crime rates might increase at first, but then eventually decrease in the long run, if there was less gun ownership in America? I'd agree that America would be better off if certain cultural value sets played a less influential role in our society, and that some of those value sets are championed by a lot of the same people who make up the country's gun-owning population, but is making gun ownership less common really going to help diminish the influence of those values? Do people champion those values and hold their mindsets because they own guns?

Incidentally, I agree completely that intolerance of the intolerable is no bad thing (I just see nothing intolerable in gun ownership, of course). And thank you for joining this conversation. It's good to have you as a participant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinysides

I'm advocating acceptance of people's views because they have the right to have views. My point is not that everyone should have the right to do whatever they want, my point is that people should have the right to think however they want. Laws govern what you can and cannot do, and rightly so, for some people are sick and twisted, but laws cannot govern what you think or how you feel.

---

I'm pretty sure that Gwahir isn't suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to think what they want or hold whatever opinions they want. What he's saying is that it's not "intolerant" or "discriminatory" or otherwise wrong for him to disagree with, criticize, or even condemn the thoughts or opinions of others if he finds them disagreeable or deserving or criticism or even condemnation. His unwillingnessl to accept or respect their views doesn't mean he's saying their views should be illegal, it just means he's exercising his right to disagree with them. I think this is a principle we can all get behind, frankly. It doesn't just pertain to gun ownership, it pertains to any issue on which different people have different opinions. I don't see why you would advocate acceptance of people's views simply because they have a right to those views. Yeah, they have a right to their views, but they don't have a right to have those views liked and accepted by others.

I guess it comes down to what you mean we should "accept" the views of others. If you mean that we should realize that they have a right to their views and that their views shouldn't be illegal, then yeah, of course. But if you mean that we should refrain from criticizing or arguing against views that we disagree with, then no, absolutely not. And it's the second sort of "acceptance" that I think gwahir is (rightfully) unwilling to extend to ideas that he disagrees with. It's that sort of "acceptance" that ALL intelligent, opinionated people should be unwilling to extend to ideas that they disagree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

I'm interested to hear more about this. If you don't think that less gun ownership would lead to less crime, in what way would it lead to a healthier society? What does "healthy" mean here? Or when you suggest that things might get worse before getting better, do you mean that crime rates might increase at first, but then eventually decrease in the long run, if there was less gun ownership in America? I'd agree that America would be better off if certain cultural value sets played a less influential role in our society, and that some of those value sets are championed by a lot of the same people who make up the country's gun-owning population, but is making gun ownership less common really going to help diminish the influence of those values?

---

Yes, no, possibly, absolutely never, Captain James Hook, and about 3:05pm.

Does that answer all your questions? No? Oh. Right.

"Healthy" means a lot of things and you're right to call me out on it. Healthy refers to the widely-held values and, therefore, on the behaviour of most of the people in the society. What ARE healthy values and behaviours I'm sure we mostly agree on, but we can go into that more in-depth if you'd like.

I do mean that crime rates might go up and then decrease in the long run. The evidence for this? Unfortunately none, which is why I mostly stay out of gun debates these days. It's not that I can't find evidence to support myself, it's that convincing evidence is hard to find to support either my view or an opposing one. What society (similar to that of yours) in history has consistently worked to control guns for a long period of time? None that I can think of. What I believe is that more control over guns will inhibit the spread and reproduction of the negative values I mentioned, eventually to the point that widespread gun ownership simply will not be necessary or desirable. Again, I have no evidence for this, as none exists either way.

Quote:

---

Incidentally, I agree completely that intolerance of the intolerable is no bad thing (I just see nothing intolerable in gun ownership, of course). And thank you for joining this conversation. It's good to have you as a participant.

---

All that right back atcha. :)

Quote:

---

I think this is a principle we can all get behind, frankly.

---

If wishes were horses. There are a lot of ethical relativists out there, unfortunately. It's a position I can sort of sympathise with, because at first glance it appears so convincingly reasonable and humanistic. I believe that if most relativists thought out their point of view or were educated in its implications they would change their minds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

Just a brief note on "respecting people's beliefs": I don't see why I have to respect anyone's belief if I find their beliefs horrifying.

I wouldn't respect the beliefs of a society that believes baby-eating is awesome. I don't respect the beliefs of scientologists (but I respect most of them as individuals who do not know the nature of the organisation of which they are members). I don't respect the beliefs of christians (but I respect most christians). I don't respect the beliefs of very conservative people, because of how harmful their beliefs (or the beliefs that I specifically do not respect) are to humanity.

If someone doesn't respect your beliefs, don't just yell them out for being "intolerant", because there's a shitload out there that we well should be intolerant of. Either try to convince them that your beliefs are good and decent or listen to why they don't respect your beliefs, because they might have a reason.

---

That's not what I said.

I said respect someone's right to hold a certain belief without automatically insulting and attempting to punish them for holding said beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bacon ops

That's not what I said.

I said respect someone's right to hold a certain belief without automatically insulting and attempting to punish them for holding said beliefs.

---

I don't know when you ever said that. Do you ever read your own posts? I would say that I recommend doing so, only that would be disingenuous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

What society (similar to that of yours) in history has consistently worked to control guns for a long period of time? None that I can think of.

---

I suppose this depends on just how similar to the US you mean, and on what exactly you mean by "a long period of time". The closest match to these conditions would probably be the UK, though it's still far from perfect for comparative purposes. I think we can say the UK is a society that has "consistently" worked to control guns over a long time period; over the past 100+ years, British gun control laws have been systematically becoming more and more restrictive, to the point that British society is today essentially gun-free. The trickier part is whether the UK is similar enough to the US to make the comparison meaningful. Obviously there are numerous cultural and social and political similarities between the two countries (more so than between the US and almost all other countries), but there are also significant differences, especially when it comes to things like gun politics, the criminal culture, and so on. Whether the differences outweigh the similarities or vice-versa is something I couldn't speak to. For what it's worth, though, the UK's violent crime rate is about five times higher than that of the US, despite the UK being gun-free and the US being so full of guns.

I would like to hear more on your ideas about the link between gun ownership and undesirable cultural values (over-reliance on violence, jingoism, etc.) in America. Why do you think that reducing gun ownership will inhibit the transmission of these values to future generations? I find it odd that you see these undesirable values as having their root or source in the ownership of guns. If anything, I'd think it would be the other way around--that holding such values would make someone more likely to be attracted to guns, but that even without the guns, the values would still be there. I know there isn't any hard evidence one way or the other one this; I'm not asking you for evidence, I'd just like to hear the reasoning behind this idea of the bad values coming from the guns.

The UK is importantly different to the US. For one thing, I'm under the impression that illegal guns are far easier to come by and far harder to stop in the US (this works against me, I know). For another, the undesirable social values are -- or seem to an outsider to be, at any rate -- more prevalent and more connected to things like property rights in the US.

I do know that gun violence is much higher in the UK than in the US.

I don't really think that gun ownership is the source of undesirable social values. I don't think that's true. I just think that they sort of promote it subconsciously. I don't have much reasoning for this, which is why, as I said, I mostly stay out of the gun debate these days.

Furthermore -- and this will be fairly controversial, I think -- I would rather see more gun crime committed by a few and better, more humanist, peaceful social values more widespread.

I suppose my basic, non-negotiable bottom line is that gun ownership should not be seen by anyone as a "good thing", but as a necessary evil. Guns are cool in video games, but in actual fact they are grotesque and their function horiffic. I'm not sure how that works into actual gun ownership laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

I don't really think that gun ownership is the source of undesirable social values. I don't think that's true. I just think that they sort of promote it subconsciously. I don't have much reasoning for this, which is why, as I said, I mostly stay out of the gun debate these days.

---

But I know you're a reasonable person. If you think this, you must have SOME reason for it. Or is it just gut instinct and supposition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

I suppose my basic, non-negotiable bottom line is that gun ownership should not be seen by anyone as a "good thing", but as a necessary evil. Guns are cool in video games, but in actual fact they are grotesque and their function horiffic. I'm not sure how that works into actual gun ownership laws.

---

It sounds like you talking not about "gun ownership" in general, but about the specific use of guns to kill someone in self-defense. I'd of course agree that killing someone is horrific (though I still hope I'd be able to do it if it was truly necessary, since the alternative is, to me, even more horrific), but surely that doesn't mean that guns and gun ownership in general are horrific? I know that you know that guns do have other functions besides killing people. Earlier in this thread, you mentioned that you're very sympathetic to hunting, for instance. And you even mentioned that you have considered getting a gun yourself; it seems unlikely that you would do so for the purpose of having a lethal weapon around in case you needed to kill someone, so I'm guessing that your consideration of gun ownership was motivated by some other use for the thing (hunting, sport shooting?).

No, it does mean I think gun owning is pretty horiffic. Owning a weapon used specifically for killing people is just pretty horiffic to me. (We're not really talking about hunting in this discussion, though, but the owning of firearms for defensive purposes.) And if I were to own one, it would be for defense. So you're wrong on almost all counts.

As for the other point, it's basic supposition. What else could it be if it isn't based on evidence? It's based on supposition from a basically unsupported train of logic.

EDIT: You should know that I'm so sketchy and vague and useless in this debate not because I can't reconcile the facts with my position but because the facts leave me dissatisfied with any position. I am positionless except in that I know a pro-violence culture is not healthy -- as for what can be done to healthify it I have no solution that leaves me comfortable.

EDIT2: God damn, just nuke them all.

I heard the UK being mentioned there, so I will enter the ring. Be careful when mentioning the UK in gun control topics. Yes, the UK has a high crime rate, Scotland was delcared by the UN the most violent country in the developed world. The UK can be dangerous. The UK crime rate has nothing to do with gun control.

Gun crime isn't too bad in the UK, restricted to the big English cities of London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. It is also mainly prevelant amongst street gangs. Gangs killing gangs, or cases of mistaken identity, or innocents getting caught in the cross fire. Syme I kind of got the impression you were implying a flaw with gun laws in the UK by mentioning us having a higher crime rate.

Gun ownership will not and cannot become widespread in the UK. Any politician to suggest this would be commiting political suicide, and should be excluded from serious discussions as the very notion of gun ownership over here is so abhorrant it doesn't bare thinking about.

Allowing the public to own guns does nothing to solve gun crime, since it is mostly contained within English cities via street gangs. So it would do nothing to solve this, indeed it can only make it worse as guns would be easier to come by. And I live in Scotland, Glasgow is the murder capital of western Europe and most murders are done by knifes, gun crime is very rare in Scotland, allowing gun ownership in Scotland (like the laws in some states in the US I mean) is such a horrifying notion. What good is a gun to me when there are 20 teengagers outside my house packing heat? I might shoot a couple before they kil me. It would only escalate things and no one needs that. That is not the way to build a safe society.

Handguns were totally banned in the 90's after a dude went into a school in Dunblane and murdered a load of children. It was decided that the price for handgun ownership, no matter how restricted was just too high a price to pay and at the end of the day was not worth it. That is how I see gun ownership in the UK. It is just plain stupid and I doubt very much that it makes you any safer.

If you did not mean to imply our laws on guns were somehow wrong, then forget everything I just said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

I don't know when you ever said that. Do you ever read your own posts? I would say that I recommend doing so, only that would be disingenuous.

---

it's in the original, post Gwahy.

Go read it again; I haven't edited it.

Quote:

---

t's funny, I remember when tolerance meant respecting another's right to his beliefs, while disagreeing strongly.

I don't know when it changed to what it is today; "You have to agree with me, or you're a closed minded, ignorant hick!"

---

lol.
just lol.





Hey Gismo:

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1...5772280974.jpg

I don't pretend to know what effect allowing UK citizens to own guns would have. I don't particularly care, either, since I have no intentions of living in the UK, ever.

What interests me is the belief that some seem to hold; that the primary function of any given gun is to kill.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.

For instance, I know that many of us here in this subforum own many guns. Most are kept locked away, and only one or two are regularly carried or stored at the ready in case of a home invasion--those few guns have the function of killing in self or home defense. The others... not so much. Range toys or sharpshooting tools or hunting tools would better be used to describe the rest of them. I don't understand why some people seem to be concerned when some of us openly admit to liking the feeling of shooting a firearm. What's wrong with liking power? Because, when you come down to it, that's what a firearm is--power.

I brought up the UK mainly because gwahir wondered whether there has ever been a country that is similar to the US and has consistently restricted gun ownership over a long period of time. As I said above, the UK certainly fits the latter criteria, but whether it's "similar to the US" in the pertinent areas is more questionable. It's probably more similar to the US than almost any other country except perhaps Canada, but I still doubt that it's similar enough to use the UK gun control experience to predict what US gun control might accomplish.

I do agree that Britain's high crime rate isn't caused by it's strict gun control, and that easing British gun control probably won't improve public safety in the UK (though on a personal level, if I had to walk through Glasgow or Edinburgh or Aberdeen at night, I'd damn well want to have a gun on me). I wasn't trying to suggest that the UK is so violent because it has restricted guns, or that the solution to the UK's violence problem is to lift it's gun restrictions. I think the lesson to be taken from the UK is that violent crime is the product of a complex stew of social and cultural and economic factors, and that the availability of guns is a fairly minor factor in comparison to many of the others. So it's possible to have societies that have high gun ownership rates and fairly high violent crime rates (the US), societies that have very low gun ownership rates and VERY high violent crime rates (the UK), societies that have high gun ownership rates and fairly low violent crime rates (Switzerland), and so forth. The influence of gun ownership on a society's violent crime rates is lost among the much more significant influence of things like education, economic opportunity, the healthiness of the youth culture, drugs, and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

No, it does mean I think gun owning is pretty horiffic. Owning a weapon used specifically for killing people is just pretty horiffic to me. (We're not really talking about hunting in this discussion, though, but the owning of firearms for defensive purposes.) And if I were to own one, it would be for defense. So you're wrong on almost all counts.

---

But "gun owning" and "owning a weapon used specifically for killing" aren't the same thing. You can't discount hunting, for instance, just because we haven't been talking much about it in this thread. A lot of people who own guns do own them for the purpose of hunting rather than killing people, no matter how little we've discussed hunting thus far. The same is true of sport shooting, historical collecting, and so on. I feel like it's disingenuous to say that gun ownership as a whole is horrific because one use for guns is horrific it happens to be the use we've talked about the most in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crunker

I don't understand why some people seem to be concerned when some of us openly admit to liking the feeling of shooting a firearm. What's wrong with liking power? Because, when you come down to it, that's what a firearm is--power.

---

....this does not help the pro-gun case.

I don't understand, though, why people aren't willing to acknowledge that.

I like power.

I like cars, computers, security systems, aircraft, martial arts, and schooling because they all empower me, and give me an increased degree of control over my life. Guns are not different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

No, it does mean I think gun owning is pretty horiffic. Owning a weapon used specifically for killing people is just pretty horiffic to me. (We're not really talking about hunting in this discussion, though, but the owning of firearms for defensive purposes.) And if I were to own one, it would be for defense. So you're wrong on almost all counts.

---

I know you're saying this out of ignorance, so I guess that's why nobody's really corrected you.


You don't own a gun to kill someone, ever.

You own a gun to <b>stop</b> a threat.

If drawing the gun (pointed at the floor), yelling at the person trying to hurt you a little bit, works and they stop, the gun has served its purpose.

Likewise if you have to point it at him.
If you fire, and he receives a superficial wound, but stops and runs, the gun's purpose was not to kill, it was to stop him.

If you fire, and the guy receives a life threatening wound, but it had to be done to save your life (and/or the life(ves) of your loved ones) the guns purpose was to save a life.



Honestly, Gwahir, if there were absolutely no guns at all in the world, and I mean it literally, no one had guns, I wouldn't mind it one bit; In fact, I'd like it even better.

I could visit my family in mexico without worrying about getting shot by cartel faggots.


However, we live in an ugly world, and I'm not comfortable relying on someone else's father/husband/son/brother responding to a 911 call to risk their lives because I wasn't responsible enough to provide for my own well being.

anyhow, I've gone on too long.

Bacon ops, I may have read all the wrong things, but everything I read from CCP holders, self defense enthusiasts and military-trained people says the same thing: don't pull your gun out unless you intend to fire it, and don't shoot someone unless you intend to kill them.

Guns can be used to scare and maim but their purpose is as a deadly weapon. And if you kill someone to save your own life, you've still killed someone. The function of a gun when it's used in self defense is to a stop -- nay, eliminate -- a threat by killing it. You can't skirt around that by saying they're intended for "protection" and killing is just an unfortunate side-effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

But "gun owning" and "owning a weapon used specifically for killing" aren't the same thing. You can't discount hunting, for instance, just because we haven't been talking much about it in this thread. A lot of people who own guns do own them for the purpose of hunting rather than killing people, no matter how little we've discussed hunting thus far. The same is true of sport shooting, historical collecting, and so on. I feel like it's disingenuous to say that gun ownership as a whole is horrific because one use for guns is horrific it happens to be the use we've talked about the most in this thread.

---

Well, gun ownership in the context of owning guns to kill people. I don't mean to discount hunting, I just mean that we haven't been discussing gun ownership of this kind, so it doesn't enter into this discussion. Owners of guns for hunting have essentially nothing to do with anything I've talked about, so I really have no problem with the concept whatsoever.

I don't mean to say hunting and sport shooting has no place in the gun ownership debate, I mean to say it's irrelevant in this debate because it's just not the type of gun ownership anyone's talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

Bacon ops, I may have read all the wrong things, but everything I read from CCP holders, self defense enthusiasts and military-trained people says the same thing: don't pull your gun out unless you intend to fire it, and don't shoot someone unless you intend to kill them.

Guns can be used to scare and maim but their purpose is as a deadly weapon. And if you kill someone to save your own life, you've still killed someone. The function of a gun when it's used in self defense is to a stop -- nay, eliminate -- a threat by killing it. You can't skirt around that by saying they're intended for "protection" and killing is just an unfortunate side-effect.



Well, gun ownership in the context of owning guns to kill people. I don't mean to discount hunting, I just mean that we haven't been discussing gun ownership of this kind, so it doesn't enter into this discussion. Owners of guns for hunting have essentially nothing to do with anything I've talked about, so I really have no problem with the concept whatsoever.

I don't mean to say hunting and sport shooting has no place in the gun ownership debate, I mean to say it's irrelevant in this debate because it's just not the type of gun ownership anyone's talking about.

---

Of course, one needs to understand that firing to stop is the use of deadly force.
Legally speaking, if one shoots at someone's foot to wound them, it's still deadly force. There is no distinction in the US judicial system.

That being said:

There's a little difference in when people decide to draw their guns.
Personally, I'd give the guy every chance to run away, surrender, or to rethink what he's doing. I'm not going to shoot as immediately if time allows.



I'll let the others chime in here as well, but there is never a time when you shoot with the intent to kill unless you're in the military, I guess. You fire until the threat is stopped, and then you cease immediately.


A gun is a deadly weapon, but outside the circumstances of a military nature, the purpose of that machine is decidedly not killing. It's to stop a threat.
I'm not skirting around anything, I'm explaining to you various circumstances.

If you shoot a guy in the hand, and he stops, you don't keep shooting until he's dead.

Assuming he hasn't died somehow from his wound, no one has been killed.

I don't see how you don't understand that.

Berneard Getz??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simonj

Berneard Getz??

---

David Finch?

It's spelt Bernhard Goetz sorry.

I dont really get it around here. I live in a largely pro gun area. And all of my friends except for 2 are gun owners. And only one of them doesnt really care for guns. He will come shooting with us if there is nothing else to do, but he has yet to come.

One thing that really aggrivates me is when I show someone a gun I have, and they say "remind me to never piss you off lolololol."

Bacon ops, as a gun owner, I disagree that gwahir spoke "out of ignorance" when he said that owning a gun for self-defense amounts to owning a gun for killing people. I can't speak for others, but personally, I refrained from "correcting" him on this point not because I thought he was speaking out of ignorance, but because I don't disagree with him.

Yes, it is true that when you use a gun for self-defense, you aren't actually trying to kill someone; you are trying to dissuade them, and if that doesn't work, to incapacitate them. But you dissuade them by threatening them with a deadly weapon, and if you are forced to incapacitate them, you do so by using that weapon to inflict wounds that could easily prove deadly. All this stuff about only inflicting a "superficial wound" or "shooting the guy in the hand" is a bunch of nonsense, and you should know better. If you have ever taken a CCW class or any other form of self-defense training, you know that you DON'T attempt to non-lethally wound an attacker; you DON'T try to shoot them in the arm or hand or leg or foot. You aim for their center of mass, where their heart is located, and fire repeatedly until your target falls to the ground (or, less likely, flees). The ability of the firearm to inflict lethal wounds is what makes it work as a defensive weapon. If the firearm wasn't capable of inflicting lethal wounds, it wouldn't be able to dissuade or to incapacitate an attacker. So when you use that weapon to "stop the threat", you are, by definition, threatening another person with the possibility of death--and then, if necessary, inflicting wounds that may well cause their death--even if their death isn't your express goal. So I don't it's ignorant of gwahir to perceive guns, at least those owned for defensive purposes, as being intrinsically lethal in their nature or character. Irrespective of whether the user actually wants to kill someone when he defends himself, and irrespective of whether he even does so, he's relying on the gun's lethality to get the job done. In this sense, he's owning that gun expressly because it can kill someone. And I think gwahir is right when he says that this ugly truth can't be skirted around by talking about how the defensive gun user isn't trying to kill someone (true as that may be in it's own right).

But gwahir: Let me also remind you that it is true that, despite the lethal nature of guns, the vast majority of defensive gun uses don't end in a fatality. There are widely varying estimates on the number of defensive gun use incidents that occur every year in the US, but even the lowest estimates are several hundred thousand incidents per year, and the most widely cited figure is more than two million incidents per year. This means that for every time an armed citizen kills in self-defense, dozens or hundreds of armed citizens use their guns to defend themselves without killing anyone (and of course, a significant fraction of those incidents represent the successful prevention of a murder, rape, etc. that otherwise would have occurred).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

But gwahir: Let me also remind you that it is true that, despite the lethal nature of guns, the vast majority of defensive gun uses don't end in a fatality. There are widely varying estimates on the number of defensive gun use incidents that occur every year in the US, but even the lowest estimates are several hundred thousand incidents per year, and the most widely cited figure is more than two million incidents per year. This means that for every time an armed citizen kills in self-defense, dozens or hundreds of armed citizens use their guns to defend themselves without killing anyone (and of course, a significant fraction of those incidents represent the successful prevention of a murder, rape, etc. that otherwise would have occurred).

---

I didn't know this. It's quite heartening, indeed.

Syme is right. I carry a gun, but I wont shoot someone the moment I have to pull it. Id much rather be able to get them to get the fuck away, or get on the ground till police come. But if you carry a gun you should always know that if you pull it, you should be ready to take a life, because you never know what will happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Bacon ops, as a gun owner, I disagree that gwahir spoke "out of ignorance" when he said that owning a gun for self-defense amounts to owning a gun for killing people. I can't speak for others, but personally, I refrained from "correcting" him on this point not because I thought he was speaking out of ignorance, but because I don't disagree with him.

Yes, it is true that when you use a gun for self-defense, you aren't actually trying to kill someone; you are trying to dissuade them, and if that doesn't work, to incapacitate them. But you dissuade them by threatening them with a deadly weapon, and if you are forced to incapacitate them, you do so by using that weapon to inflict wounds that could easily prove deadly. All this stuff about only inflicting a "superficial wound" or "shooting the guy in the hand" is a bunch of nonsense, and you should know better. If you have ever taken a CCW class or any other form of self-defense training, you know that you DON'T attempt to non-lethally wound an attacker; you DON'T try to shoot them in the arm or hand or leg or foot. You aim for their center of mass, where their heart is located, and fire repeatedly until your target falls to the ground (or, less likely, flees). The ability of the firearm to inflict lethal wounds is what makes it work as a defensive weapon. If the firearm wasn't capable of inflicting lethal wounds, it wouldn't be able to dissuade or to incapacitate an attacker. So when you use that weapon to "stop the threat", you are, by definition, threatening another person with the possibility of death--and then, if necessary, inflicting wounds that may well cause their death--even if their death isn't your express goal. So I don't it's ignorant of gwahir to perceive guns, at least those owned for defensive purposes, as being intrinsically lethal in their nature or character. Irrespective of whether the user actually wants to kill someone when he defends himself, and irrespective of whether he even does so, he's relying on the gun's lethality to get the job done. In this sense, he's owning that gun expressly because it can kill someone. And I think gwahir is right when he says that this ugly truth can't be skirted around by talking about how the defensive gun user isn't trying to kill someone (true as that may be in it's own right).

But gwahir: Let me also remind you that it is true that, despite the lethal nature of guns, the vast majority of defensive gun uses don't end in a fatality. There are widely varying estimates on the number of defensive gun use incidents that occur every year in the US, but even the lowest estimates are several hundred thousand incidents per year, and the most widely cited figure is more than two million incidents per year. This means that for every time an armed citizen kills in self-defense, dozens or hundreds of armed citizens use their guns to defend themselves without killing anyone (and of course, a significant fraction of those incidents represent the successful prevention of a murder, rape, etc. that otherwise would have occurred).

---

Very well put, Syme.

The "non lethal wound" business was theoretical in nature, Syme; I've been taught to aim for C.O.M. just like everyone else.

I meant the "ignorance" in quite a literal sense; I wasn't questioning his intelligence, I was just pointing out that he was uneducated on the issue, and therefore, ignorant of the facts.


Thanks for this post, though, really well put.

What does C.O. M. stand for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

What does C.O. M. stand for?

---

Communique on Manatees.

Just kidding, it's center of mass.

You know, now that I think about it, I've seen some people who have their center of mass somewhere around their wastelines. Blargh, fat people. :tengu: