Guns as the great equalizer

Post Reply New Topic

I'm of two minds on this one: I'm from what I suspect is one of the most hoplophobic countries that still allow private citizens ownership of guns. You must have a hunting exam or a signed paper from a recognized shooting club before you're even considered for a license, and even then, your application can be denied based solely on the gun "looking scary". In order not to look scary, a rifle must look like a mauser rifle from 100+ years ago. I'm probably more for gun control than I am against it, but control is not the same as "ridiculous arbitrary hurdles".

On the other han, I've read some scary stories. While I think the gun culture in the US is a little too over-the-top, those guys at least tend to take gun safety seriously. The time when things get the scariest is when people who don't know or care about guns decide they should have one. In one instance, a young woman had been mugged at knifepoint, and decided she should have a gun to deter that, should it happen again. She bought a revolver, and promptly blew her own hand off. How? She loaded all chambers, took the safety off, cocked the hammer and then put the gun in her purse. Luckily, the surgeons were able to restore her hand, but I don't want to think about all the directions that barrel was pointed in before it was bumped and went off. Freedom to possess arms, sure. but I think that kind of power should come with some level of responsibility to know what you're doing, not least from within oneself.

Yep, it's a 23. I've never had reliability problems keeping the mags fully loaded. Once in a great while I'll swap the loaded mags out......

Does anyone NOT load all chambers of a modern revolver? Manual safeties on revolvers are a rarity. Carrying a cocked revolver in a purse is stupid. You can't fix stupid and that person will probably die from doing something else stupid sooner or later.


With the rise in privately owned firearms since 2009 there has not been a significant rise in gun related accidents.

One might argue ignorance over stupidity, although they aren't mutually exclusive. My point is that she probably wouldn't have carried it cocked if she'd known the first thing about guns, and my concern was more for the people unlucky enough to be in her general vicinity.



I'm glad to hear this.

What about all the stupid but licensed people driving?

Also a kind, gentle aspie on equal footing with an arrogant, violent thug.

I'm as left-wing as they come, borderline socialist, even. Heck, I've even fantasized about a Second American Revolution, paralleling the French and the Russian counterparts. But I'm very much against gun control. Gun control is nothing more than a war against the weak, plain and simple! Yeah, the strong may still win more than half the time, but with a gun in hand, the weak will still have a fighting chance. Without a gun, they're sitting ducks, an easy picking for violent sociopaths, with no legal recourse whatsoever.

That said, we need marksmanship classes to be a mandatory part of a firearm license, and those classes should be difficult to pass. That, and make any violent crime conviction prevent you from getting the license for 20 years. This way, only people who strongly feel they need firearm protection will make an effort to go through the requirements. And it'll give enough time for violent thugs, who are typically in their teens and 20's, to age out of their thug years before being able to buy a gun. (In the meantime, they'll get a taste of their own medicine.)

I have a theory why the American South is so polite and hospitable. One reason is because gun ownership is so high there, and people buy into the "an armed society is a polite society" mindset. It's not without downsides, though: it caused lots of passive-aggressive phrases to come about. For example, "Bless your heart!", a seemingly well-wishing expression, is actually equivalent to "Oh my god, you're such a loser!"

Remember: the best cop is an armed law-abiding civilian.

Well, a person having passed the driving exam can hardly claim ignorance, can they? So that leaves either stupidity, as you say, or some degree of disrepect for the law. Driving under the influence of either should be grounds for revoked license.

that's a very lazy comparison. cars are not designed to kill people while guns are.

sooooooooo
first, what if that fails what if they don't stop? peper spray, stun gun/othing thing all have higher failure rates. lots of people that carry guns also carry non lethals. its a step up plan for them.

second. most people identify their target before shooting, its kinda one of the main rules, know your target and whats behind it. if you tell someone to stop and identify and they keep running at you its probably not youf friend or family. they know you own a gun they'll not going do that knowing you'll shoot. same as they won't break into your house(who smashes their family/friends window to get in?, most people nock at the door) really the person who's breaking into your house in the middle of the night is 99% going be a robber. do you go around smashing in your friends/families windows?

you and others on the left act like gun owners just start opening fire the second they hear a tiny noise. reality check. we own flashlights and investigate. besides say shooting the wrong person which is highly unlikely, the more likely would be a discharge in your house which in most cities is illegal. so here come fines, jail time, loss of your rights/property. so the left myth of a person jumping up and shooting is just that. now if someone is smashing through my window in my bedroom, which is 10 feet away from me then yeah I'll probably wake up see what's happening and shoot without trying to identify, its really not enough time to at that point.

really though my animals which most people have make all kinds of noises in the night, you don't react to all those with gun fire. I consider any noise to be my animals first I don't jump to must be an intruder, so I like most people like I said above get my flashlight and gun and go investigate. if i did find someone I'd bring my gun up and tell them to freeze and ask who it is. most people that live in a house turn on lights, so you'd see it was a family/friend. criminals are sneaking and leave lights off. its all about the situation and reading signs around you.

most gun owners don't want to shoot anyone. we aren't blood thirsty baby killers that the left likes to paint us as.

indeed the research points to this and what I learned about springs in auto shop also backs it up. its the unloading and reloading that wears springs out, not sitting loaded. but still a lot of people believe the myth, which started because the army unloaded not because of feed problems but a loaded gi mag made it hard to put a mag in a gun. loaded with 30 rounds left little room for the spring to compress more, which is needed to load on a closed bolt. pmags for a example uses longer springs. though if you just slap the gi mag in and check its secured you'd have no problem. some people do 2 less others 5 some I've heard load 10 less ^o.o>



also most if not all modern revolvers now have a safety bar, as I think the gov requires all guns to have a firing pin block or similar device. on revolvers its a safety bar that is pulled down when the trigger is fired, but otherwise sits between the hammer and the firing pin. likely the lady bought a used old model. still double action revolvers should not be carried cocked what's the point in that.

yes and lets restrict people who look scary too, and scary cars, and scary dogs and scary foods. well lets just ban anything that might scare anyone. yep no place for things that scary irrational people. just just gotta ban everything and everyone. cut down all those scary trees who cares if they been around for thousands of years. kill all lions, tigers, wolfs, etc. they'll scary.

thank gosh for the us constitution that protects our rights here in the use from irrational people. guess what technology changed. 5 round bolt action mausers are the past, simi auto have been around since 1900s. really dont' care if something looks scary to you, thats your irrational problem not mine. suppose atleast you arent' saying muskets or cross bows(though many are afraid of crossbows too) >.>

so just prevent the poor and non sniper elite from owning guns?
some states have harder test for citizens then cops or military does. thats freaking stupid. if you can hit all rounds on target at 7 yards which is where most shootings happen then you're good, but that's just for if you carry a gun, shouldn't be any restriction on owning one. as that is protected by the 2nd amendment very clearly. though even carrying shouldn't be tested, as one could argue bear arms means carry.

I'm not a great shot but I'm decent. good enough I could be a cop or join the military likely if not prohibited to for being born differnt. my friend is a great shot with not even needing to practice. not everyone can be a sniper, so fail to see how such hard testing should be made required.

just another creating a solution to a non existent problem. only cases of people shooting and missing and hitting others I've seen have been by cops.

I don't get to practice at all now. too poor. under your rules I'd be barred from defending myself. I'm a kind defenseless aspie. notice how a lot of gun control and thats what you said even if on the low end, is geard towards keeping guns only in the hands of the wealthy elite.

fees, feees, fees,
costly classes,
expensive insurance per gun,
carry insurance per gun
more fees, fees, and fees,
etc

so why is it only the well off should have guns?

Firearms get an individual closer to that truism than anything else.

So you admit it's not really an equalizer.

The will to harm a human being is still a factor.




Data isn't the plural of anecdote.

Last edited by blauSamstag on 08 Jun 2015, 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

My point was that people say they carry a gun to protect themselves from "bad guys" with guns, but most gun deaths are suicides. So clearly, the risk of someone shooting you and killing you is much smaller than the risk of you shooting yourself.

The fact that you are unlikely to kill yourself doesn't change that.

And the fact is that gun suicides are far more frequently successful than other methods. Most of the other popular methods, people too easily screw up (because nobody reminded them that it's "down the road" not "across the street", or they fail at pharmacology, etc).