A Really Quick Point On Guns

[ihavenobias]

I laugh at this idea that gun nuts have (and for the record, not everyone who owns a gun is a "gun nut" so I *am* making a distinction here).

They act as though time spent at the shooting range automatically equips them to be Rambo in a real life situation with moving targets, armed opponents, hormones and brain chemicals off the charts and real lives at risk.

It's a joke. Even professionals make mistakes or freeze under pressure, and we're expecting the average Joe and Jane to be like this(?)

(NOTE: This 30 second video includes one F-word and two quick and *non-gory* shootings. IMO it's comical because I really think this is how *some* gun owners think the world works. You know, the people who think we'd all be safer if everyone had a gun):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtWLnB4WyGk&feature=related

PS---I'm moderate on guns BTW. It's really not a high priority issue for me either way. Obviously they've saved some lives in addition to taking them. I don't want to create another generic debate on guns, I just wanted to focus on the specific idea that we'd all be safer with guns and the cartoonish (IMO) reasoning that sometimes lies behind that belief.

[slackmaster]

1. "...the specific idea that we'd all be safer with guns..."

Who specifically has said that?

[ihavenobias]

2. Oh boy, here we go

Pro-gun guests on talk shows after school shootings come to mind.

(sigh) And here I thought I did a half decent job of avoiding a generic back and forth on this issue. I guess not.

[slackmaster]

3. Specific link please, video if you have one

Who specifically said that we would all be safer with guns?

If you'd prefer to clarify what you really meant in the OP, that would be acceptable to me as well. Hyperbole has its place in literature, but you seem to be trying to define a class of people, i.e. "the people who think we'd all be safer if everyone had a gun".

I'm challenging you to prove that such a class of people really exists.

[ihavenobias]

4. Great, so you're going to play semantics bully now?

Come on, unless I put quotes around something it's really obnoxious to do that.

I've had conversations with people who said that. I didn't take them literally when they said "everyone" and I believe that they meant "most people".

[slackmaster]

5. You're getting foggier and foggier

You've gone from "Pro-gun guests on talk shows", who you can't or won't name, to "people" you claim to have had conversations with.

Great, so you're going to play semantics bully now?

I just want you to explain who you are referring to, and what they actually said.

Is that asking too much?

[ihavenobias]

6. And you're still playing semantics bully on what I thought was going to be a light thread

with a comical video clip of cartoonish vigilante style violence.

What's your beef, I *clearly* hit a nerve here.

You can spend all day googling and looking things up if it means that much to you. I'm not going to waste any more time on that, especially after my clear disclaimer and distinction regarding gun nuts vs the average gun owner (for someone so caught up on words I'm not sure how you missed that part in the OP).

PS---http://community.comcast.net/comcastportal/board/message?board.id=cityhall&message.id=477017

[slackmaster]

7. OK, you found one

Now I understand who you are referring to.

[navarth]

22. well WHOOPEE. slackmaster is satisfied.

"Now I understand who you are referring to."

Come on Stan, don't labor the point"
-Monty Python

[slackmaster]

32. I find it much more interesting to discuss specific individuals or well-defined groups

Than to read a poorly thought-out, weakly written rant about some vague "Them", evidenced only by a brief fictional video.

It's glaringly obvious the OP has had no self-defense training.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. A gun grabber here last week said all male children should be castrated to control violence.

So to understand you, you post a comical post about people being murdered and then expect to have a light hearted discussion.

David

[CherylK]

8. LOL, that video is ridiculous!

I get that sense too, that some people really think life is like it is in the movies.

[MicaelS]

9. Anyone who uses the term "gun nut"

And then goes on to temporize about their use, is like some white person saying "Some of my best friends are minorities".

[ihavenobias]

10. No, not at all actually

If you have a moderate position on something you can make a distinction between both ends/extremes of the spectrum and everything in between.

And you can argue that any use of the phrase "gun nut" is unnecessarily inflammatory and we can have a reasonable disagreement about that.

[Real_Talk]

26. moderate my ass

Your position is moderately condescending. In many ways a civilian is in better position to make a good shoot than a police officer One, the civilian probably shoots more than twice a year to meet the job minimum. Two, the civilian actually knows who the bad guy is and does not arrive in a ball of confusion. Three,this nation is home to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of combat vets who might be able to refrain from peeing down their leg when things get ugly.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Then why did you post a video

of a fictional character murdering at least one man that had not physically threatened him? The guy that gets shot first has no weapon in his hand, and makes no move toward Bronson's character.

This doesn't seem like an honest way to start any sort of constructive debate.

[navarth]

23. Nah.

It's more like saying 'all gun nuts are oversensitive'

This thread proves that not to be true.

[OhioChick]

11. Are you calling me a "gun nut?"

:rofl: Just kidding....

As a gun owner, (took several NRA courses) and often go to the shooting range, I don't consider myself a gun nut, but rather a responsible gun owner. However, many times while at the shooting range....I've seen many that even I would refer to as "gun nuts." :)

Get about an hour away from the city here and look out...:scared:

[SteveM]

12. I know very few people who aspire to be Rambo, except in the cinema...

I assume this is a serious -- though "light" -- thread, so I must say that very few folks I know of aspire to being some kind of "Rambo." And I really don't know of anyone who advances a policy that "...we'd all be safer if everyone had a gun..." And the vast majority don't even express that opinion, Robert Heinlein not withstanding. What a lot of folks DO say is "if I had a gun I might be safer."

The main reason for being on the range (sighting in deer rifles, competitive target shooting, and sporting clays aside) is to learn how to use a firearm safely and competently should one be necessary for self-defense. The vast majority of gun owners are under no illusion that such training comes with a warranty of outcome.

[SteveM]

13. After viewing the video, I have the context: a movie fiction square peg ...

in the round hole of reality. I thought it was going to see a bad hair day at a real range.

[ihavenobias]

16. I encourage you look at the youtube comments on that video n/t

[SteveM]

17. I did. Your point? (nt)

[ihavenobias]

18. They reflect the dopey mentality I was referring to

I think that mentality is in the minority (something I made sure to stress in my OP) but it exists. Those comments are ridiculous, I'm sure you agree.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[SteveM]

19. Folks have been saying that about fictional cinema since Seven Sumari (nt)

[tburnsten]

34. Youtube comments are a huge display of ass

and nothing more. I remember the video of the young girl stripping an AR and re assembling it in about a minute, many of the comments were good, but there were some really disgusting ones left there as well, and that video was no exception. People don't comment on youtube to have a good discussion.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Do you know anything about the people posting those comments?

Could they be children perhaps? Maybe people who have nothing to do with guns?

[benEzra]

38. Among YouTube gun comments, an inordinate number appear to be...

posted by 13-year-olds who think playing CounterStrike makes them an expert on weapons and tactics.

[tburnsten]

39. ?

You mean it doesn't?

[benEzra]

41. !

[margotb822]

14. Personally, I like Chris Rock's idea:

Tax Bullets.

They do the real damage anyways...

[spin]

24. Taxing bullets is a bad idea...

The people who own guns would not be able to afford ammunition to become proficient with their weapon. Stray bullets everywhere.

[benEzra]

33. That would be unconstitutional, just as exorbitant taxes on printer's ink.

I can't remember the case citation offhand, but the supreme court has already ruled that any tax that unreasonably impairs the exercise of a constitutional right is unconstitutional, even if the effect is indirect. The case involved a state that wished to tax printer's ink, on the theory that printing presses were constitutionally protected, but not the ink they use. The court slapped them down.

[jody]

43. Thanks for the post, see link below, 460 U.S. 575, MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE CO. v. MINNESOTA

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/460/575.html

[benEzra]

47. That's the one, thanks! (n/t)

[SteveM]

40. I know it's a joke, but Rock should really refer to Amendment XXIV(nt)

[Dukkha]

15. Isn't a bayonet a quick point on guns?

on mine it is ;)

[radioburning]

27. hoooo! Thanks folks, I'll be here all week

don't forget to tip your waiter! Just messin' with ya. :pals:
I love my SKS, and I love the fact that if I took off the bayonet that would turn it into an "assault weapon" under Kalifornia state law...:wtf:

[Tejas]

20. You need to get out more, to a range perhaps

before you throw generalities out about "the average Joe and Jane".

"average Joes and Janes" get vastly much more range time than LEO's, many do it every weekend but you'd probably just classify them as "gun nuts" too.

[pipoman]

21. You obviously aren't

familiar with the non-existent training regiment of most police departments. It consists of an annual firearms certification and no requirement for practice. I have sat through several LEO firearms certification range tests. It is embarrassing and completely blows your assertion that only LEOs are able to handle a firearm...its a joke among range masters everywhere.

OTOH most people who buy a defensive firearm and holster with their own money, pay for the instruction necessary in their state to qualify for a CCW permit, pay the fees for the permit, pass the background checks, pass the range qualification, pass the classroom portion and carry concealed, practice regularly because they want to and they enjoy it. It isn't work to them. Most take all this VERY seriously.

The meme that anyone advocates 'arming everyone' is nonsense, if you happen to find someone who does they are a complete anomaly. There are at least 5 major firearms related forums on the net whose search feature is ran by google. If there were many people advocating arming everyone, they would be there and you wouldn't have to go to some no traffic blog to find some nutsack who espouses your premise.

The bottom line on CCW for me and most everyone else I know who does, is that their reason for doing so has nothing to do with the effect on crime statistics. It has to do with anecdotal results. It is for the carrier's defense and the defense of their family nothing else. Not some illusion of being a caped crusader as you imply.

Have you ever taken the time to research crime stats of CCW holders?

Florida alone has issued some 1.2 million permits since they passed the shall issue ccw. No blood in the streets, no wild west shoot outs, no cross fire scenarios, damned few revocations for gun related offenses. So the real question isn't why ccw, its why not ccw (for those who wish to).

[spin]

25. Movies are fun to watch but any resemblance to real life is...

merely coincidental.

[gateley]

28. I have a similar fantasy that I was standing there with a gun when the

the assholes who robbed me of every fucking thing I held dear to me climbed in my window.

I still think about it when I go in my front door - past the window. Sometimes it's a taser. Sometimes I just slam the window on their fingers and put all my weight on it until the cops arrive. But I really like how Bronson dispatched these guys.

I liked this clip!

[krispos42]

29. Yeah, it's a joke

I know that, useful as that callous attitude might be, I don't have it.

I know that if God forbid I ever have to shoot somebody it will be full of screams and thrashing and begging and blood. The human body holds a surprisingly large amount of blood and an unseemly large amount of it would spill out.

And smells. There would be smells. Blood, bile, urine, feces.

And then there would be that dreadful period of time between me shooting the attacker and the police or paramedics showing up, where I'll have to try to figure out if I should drop the gun and try to save his life or if he's too dangerous and I just have to stand back and watch him thrash around gushing blood.


And then I'll have to live with it, regardless of the outcome of my attacker.




It's very heavy and disturbing.

[pipoman]

30. And this is the condition not considered by the OP

and others who hold similar beliefs.

People who jump through all of the whoops to carry concealed or those who keep a defensive firearm often run scenarios that others don't. It is similar to driving in that a person who doesn't drive doesn't think about cause and effect. When a person begins driving, those who become the safest drivers are constantly alert and play the 'what if' game...what if that car failed to stop there? What would be the right defensive move to avoid an accident. What if that car crossed the center line? What would be the right move. This type of thinking has saved me the pain of many accidents. It is the difference between an experienced driver and an inexperienced driver. The longer a person carries a gun or keeps a gun for defense the more time that person has had to prepare themselves mentally for the possibility of having to use it. This forethought and these scenarios are why there are so few bad shoots by ccw holders. Most fully realize the problems, both psychological and legal which will arise upon them using their gun. Therefore while they are prepared to use the gun under certain circumstances, it is a last resort or only option scenario which will make them use it. The rest of the time most try to be as polite and non confrontational as possible to avoid trouble.

This brings me back to the fallacy of the premise of the op. The op assumes that people who ccw or keep defensive firearms do so without thought or never consider the repercussions of their doing so, they do. Those who don't and who consider those who do paranoid, have no plan and rarely consider their coarse of action if confronted by someone who wishes to victimize them, thus they are easier targets for those who wish to.

[krispos42]

35. Exactly

It's role-playing of sorts. I do it all the time on a variety of different topics as a way to keep the brain amused.

Especially when I read some of the bizarre stories on Fark... :-)

[benEzra]

31. I dare say an "average Joe or Jane" who shoots IDPA regularly for a year or two

will be more competent under stress than a police academy graduate who never shot a gun in his life until three months ago, who is required to shoot his gun only twice a year for quals, on a square range at stationary paper targets, with extremely generous "passing" scores.

I've looked up several state police firearms quals, and they are *not* difficult by most standards. If you can finish in the upper two thirds of an IDPA or IPSC match, you can probably pass any non-SWAT firearms qual in your state without even practicing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. I'll second that.

[gorfle]

42. On the machismo of firearm ownership.

The elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge is that there are, in fact, gun owners who own guns because of the machismo. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that everyone who owns a gun gets a feeling of machismo, or at least empowerment, from it.

Let's face it - there was never a 12 year old boy who'd daddy bought him his first .22 for Christmas who didn't feel a little bit excited and, dare I say "manly" because now he owns a "real gun" just like his Dad.

Also, the whole point of action movies, or any movie (or book, or play) for that matter, is to get you to empathize with certain characters. In this case it's your typical "good guy kicks bad guy ass and takes name" kind of movie. A more serious version in the same vein is "A Time to Kill" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117913/ ). In either case we are to empathize with the "good guy" seeking instant justice against the "bad guys". The popularity of these films indicates that these sentiments resonate with a lot of people.

Further, we are, as a species, warlike, no matter how much we strive to suppress, ignore, or hide this fact. There is something primal about wielding a weapon. A realization of being in the possession of power and the ability to take charge of your destiny through force. It is heady.

No doubt there are firearm owners out there who's passions rule them and are as a result poor candidates for firearm ownership.

But most firearm owners are well grounded in reality. We might empathize with movie characters like Paul Kersey and Carl Lee Hailey, but we realize that in real life if we did these things we'd be in prison.

[benEzra]

48. I don't think I would equate that feeling of confidence and capability with maleness, though.

I think framing feelings of competence, confidence, and empowerment as intrinsically "male" characteristics is a holdover from the 1950's neo-Victorian mindset in which technical incompetence, passivity, and dependence were regarded as intrinsically female, and their opposites as intrinsically male.

Given that around a third of U.S. gun owners are women, and that women are even more likely than men to own guns for reasons of self-reliance than men are, I would suggest that "machismo" is the wrong word. Confidence, yes; machismo, no.

It is the same feeling you get from becoming proficient at any other martial art.

[Callisto32]

44. Okay, so...

You make the point that when it hits the fan, the average person is not equipped to deal with the chaos of a real fight. I would like to know if you have ever scrapped for your life. Because I have. I was 9 years old at the time, and the instigator was a coked-up stepfather of mine with an ax to grind with me, my mother, and my stepbrother. There were guns involved. No shots, and only one person had a gun (the nutcase, obviously; being that he roused us all out of bed for this little round-robin at about 2 AM). The four of us were all active participants in an altercation of the physical variety. This particular scenario was carried out, almost as a carbon copy, 3 times.

My point is that it is chaotic, it is loud, it is inherently confusing; but you damn sure are thinking on your toes. When the switch clicks that tells you "real lives are at risk" everything suddenly gets very, very clear and very, very urgent. At least for me, there is a world of difference between a fight, and I know those too (my stepbrother started to take on after his father as we got older and I have two artificial front teeth bearing witness), and a fight for your life. A fight is confusing as all getout, a fight for your life leaves you thinking in the way you need to think to preserve your life.

I find it somewhat offensive that you would suggest that the average person is not capable of defending his life; presumably, because he has not gone through some kind of government-run how-to-survive-a-fight-with-people course.