The Ineluctable Logic of Gun Ownership

[NWRatCon]

I just find it ridiculous to assert that, among all potentially lethal weapons, only guns tempt their owners to commit crimes with them.

Again, not the subject, never was; not relevant. Not even related to any claim.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

So you must consider yourself responsible at something, tell us what would piss you off until you weren't.

This isn't about me.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Large country, individualism, the drive for independence, fear and paranoia from mass media, and significant levels of narcissism.

All of which remain even with “gun control” laws in place.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Again, not the subject, never was; not relevant. Not even related to any claim.

Hmm…

The problem with having a gun is that you can be tempted to use it.

 

[Lursa]

You only get one shot at being a responsible gun owner.

Is that the same for vehicle ownership? If not, why? I mean for something accidental...not for an intentional crime for either.

 

[Lursa]

This is why we can never have rational discussions in the "gun" threads. No one bothers to read the OP, discuss the article or distinguish between it and commentary. It takes one or two posts to return to the lazy rut of the majority of posters. NOTHING in this thread has ANYTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment, for instance, or recreational shooting. I could give a rat's ass about that. I found resonance in his experiences as they paralleled my own.

This is about the ownership of firearms of a self-described "liberal" writer and his personal experience with home defense, including training. Geebus people, get a life and pay attention.

I thought I did.

 

[Lursa]

The difference is guns are for shooting/killing things and cars are for transportation. If guns were also smart phones, but sometimes they killed people, that would be different.

Three uses for guns.
Killing
Practicing to kill
Threatening to kill

And for all of those, the end purpose can be...usually is unless it's for sport...protection. Of self, of family. So what is the distinction you are making between gun deaths and car deaths?

 

[Ishm]

That’s a pretty dishonest take from what I said. If there is no idication that firearms training prevents people from becoming murderers, and there is currently no requirement for training to buy a firearm how do you take to indicate highly trained vets shouldn’t be allowed to own guns.

Who is being dishonest here???? This is what you actually said, and what I responded too - "There is no evidence that I have ever seen that someone having previous firearms training prevents them from going on to become mass murderers."
I responded that mass murderers are a category for their own discussion and weren't part of this one. Then asked you if I had missed something that suggested that we were discussing mass shootings. In other words let's keep the discussion in context please.

Then you said - "So you would rather have some one that is in an uncontrollable rage be highly trained. Seems like a bad idea to me."
Logically, and from published events, we know that at least some vets (who are the most common 'highly trained' civilian group) will suffer from uncontrollable rage at some point, especially given the horrible mental health challenges some face. Because you said it seems like a bad idea to mix 'uncontrollable rage' with 'highly trained', I asked whether you think vets shouldn't have guns? That's seems a pretty logical question taken directly from your own statements, and asks you what you are actually trying to say??

So are you being dishonest here or are you having logic/comprehension issues? I tried to directly address the issues being discussed rather than run off on deflecting insults. You could try the same!

Did you really not understand this or are you just desperately trying to come up with a gotcha even if it requires lying.
Rather typical of the gun control zealots side honestly.

Are the people who do mass shootings almost always murderers

 

[zsu2357]

The difference is guns are for shooting/killing things and cars are for transportation. If guns were also smart phones, but sometimes they killed people, that would be different.

Three uses for guns.
Killing
Practicing to kill
Threatening to kill

I see you got your ducks all lined up.
KILLING: Only if absolutely necessary.
PRACTICING TO KILL: Again as a sport and honing, so as IF need be a target can be engaged without question.
THREATENING TO KILL: Don't know about that since I've threatened no one.

But do go right ahead and have your delusions.

 

[zsu2357]

So you'll try and do better next time then? Great!!

Ah no I was speaking of the anti gun side of things.

 

[zsu2357]

This isn't about me.

So you would rather not answer the question?

 

[braindrain]

Who is being dishonest here???? This is what you actually said, and what I responded too - "There is no evidence that I have ever seen that someone having previous firearms training prevents them from going on to become mass murderers."
I responded that mass murderers are a category for their own discussion and weren't part of this one. Then asked you if I had missed something that suggested that we were discussing mass shootings. In other words let's keep the discussion in context please.

Then you said - "So you would rather have some one that is in an uncontrollable rage be highly trained. Seems like a bad idea to me."
Logically, and from published events, we know that at least some vets (who are the most common 'highly trained' civilian group) will suffer from uncontrollable rage at some point, especially given the horrible mental health challenges some face. Because you said it seems like a bad idea to mix 'uncontrollable rage' with 'highly trained', I asked whether you think vets shouldn't have guns? That's seems a pretty logical question taken directly from your own statements, and asks you what you are actually trying to say??

So are you being dishonest here or are you having logic/comprehension issues? I tried to directly address the issues being discussed rather than run off on deflecting insults. You could try the same!

Let me see if I can break this down so that you can understand it

So do you have any evidence that training prevents people from becoming murderers. Because you definitely implied that. It’s a yes or no question yet I noticed you didn’t want to answer it.

If the answer is no which is what I said I thought was the case, is it better that a person that decided to murder someone has more or less training. It’s a yes or no question yet I noticed you didn’t want to answer it.

If there is no link between people who become murderers and training then adding mandatory training to buying a firearm will stop zero people from becoming murderers and will only create better trained murderers.

And mass murderers are a subset of murderers. Unless you have some evidence that training reduces the likely hood of someone becoming one then it’s a distinction without a difference. And even more so it illustrates a situation where having more training would be very bad.

The rest of your dishonest BS about me claiming vets shouldn’t be able to buy guns is nothing more then you just trying to deflect from the fact that you can not back up your claims. But then you know that.

 

[VanceMack]

Idiot leftists cant figure out why law abiding citizens own guns and reject the actions of the idiot left to ban, register or restrict them.

I'd say the article cited by the OP makes their position clear enough.

One day I would love to see the morons in the mainstream media actually address the violent crimes committed...why...and by whom...and stop focusing on those of us who own guns that arent causing the violence and mayhem they continue to pee themselves over...to see if we can maybe work towards a solution.

I wont hold my breath.

 

[Ishm]

Ah no I was speaking of the anti gun side of things.

Don't confuse me with "anti-gun" if that is what you are doing. I've owned and used them all my teen/adult life. What I am 'anti' is thousands of unnecessary deaths every year, often innocent children or young people who should have long lives ahead of them still. Being anti people dying is not being anti gun, it's anti irresponsible management of guns

 

[NWRatCon]

I thought I did.

I agree, you're not the problem.

 

[MamboDervish]

Nope, possessing any potentially lethal weapon enables its criminal abuse as such. You simply want to treat guns differently since only guns can be used to commit “gun crime”.

Nobody is going out and committing mass murder in a church, or school, with a bowling trophy. It is YOU who is desperate to treat gun deaths the SAME as any other death, when it's plain to anyone with more than a few firing neurons in their skull that there's a huge difference. HUGE difference!! When we all start seeing daily news of drive-by hammerings, and knife sniping from 25 yards, and an extended magazine of 30 baseball bats, then your denial might begin to make a scintilla of sense ... but today it makes none. ZERO. Until that time, your knee-jerk defense of guns just doesn't work.

I want guns to be treated differently because THEY ARE DIFFERENT !! Remaining in denial of that fact doesn't buttress your argument one iota.

 

[Ishm]

Let me see if I can break this down so that you can understand it

So do you have any evidence that training prevents people from becoming murderers. Because you definitely implied that. It’s a yes or no question yet I noticed you didn’t want to answer it.

I 'implied' it from my personal experience of owning and using firearms in a different 'western' country (over many years) that still has a large civilian population of guns by international standards (no one compares to the US on that measure). Their homicide rate is 7 times lower than the US rate, and gun crime is virtually unknown by US standards. Their police don't even carry sidearms. Their attitude to firearms is completely different to the US, and the thought of using one to kill someone is just alien to their gun culture. My feeling is that a lot of that comes from the sense of heavy responsibility that is associated with owning (and keeping secure) firearms. a part of that is the training they must go through which has a heavy emphasis on the responsibilities associated with firearm safety. Now that is my personal observations, backed by published data that reinforces by thoughts. Now if you have personal experience, backed by data, to refute that rather than standard gun lobby rhetoric, lets hear it please?

If the answer is no which is what I said I thought was the case, is it better that a person that decided to murder someone has more or less training. It’s a yes or no question yet I noticed you didn’t want to answer it.

Training someone in gun safety doesn't make them a more efficient murderer does it? We're not talking about US style 'training' in mock shoot outs etc.

If there is no link between people who become murderers and training then adding mandatory training to buying a firearm will stop zero people from becoming murderers and will only create better trained murderers.

I am, and was, talking about gun culture rather than individuals. You have to change the culture to start changing individuals, as I have experienced in a different gun culture (as noted above)

And mass murderers are a subset of murderers. Unless you have some evidence that training reduces the likely hood of someone becoming one then it’s a distinction without a difference. And even more so it illustrates a situation where having more training would be very bad.

Mass murderers are a group with very significant mental health issues, and nothing other than mental health support or removing their guns will fix that. As I have already said twice now, this discussion was not about mass murderers until you deflected into that discussion. Start a new thread if you want to get into a mass murderer discussion and we can talk about that separately.

The rest of your dishonest BS about me claiming vets shouldn’t be able to buy guns is nothing more then you just trying to deflect from the fact that you can not back up your claims. But then you know that.

What I asked was completely logical, and 100% connected directly to what you wrote. I didn't say that you claimed anything. I asked you what you were trying to imply with the words you choose because they very logically lead to a conclusion that I doubted you wanted to be suggesting. If you don't like your logic being questioned, I suggest more thought about the implications of what you are typing before hitting the keys.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

So you would rather not answer the question?

Because just like every other time I tell people here what I have been doing for a living you will first be disbelieving and then upset because you will feel inferior (which is bullshit, that kinda thing isn't what make you "manly") and I don't wanna deal with it all over again.

 

[ClaraD]

The Ineluctable Logic of Gun Ownership (Atlantic)​

"When we were in our 20s, my friend Jim Ferguson would say that if you find yourself living someplace where you need to own a gun, you should move. That made sense to me then; it’s not so easy now to find safe places. If you live in a remote area, it can take the sheriff an hour or more to get to you, so if there’s a deadly threat from an intruder, you are on your own. And the past few years—indeed, the past few weeks—have shown us that gun violence knows no boundaries of geography, socioeconomic status, or age. Wherever you are, violence can find you. This reality has pushed me toward a moral dilemma: I wish no one were armed, but because practically everyone else is, I have a gun myself.

The problem with having a gun is that you can be tempted to use it. Guns also make committing acts of violence seem easier and less personal; if you’re not looking someone in the eye, it may not seem as real when you pull the trigger. To control that risk requires mental and emotional preparation, as well as rigorous training. As a reluctant gun owner, I continue to be baffled by the lack of regulation on gun ownership. Shouldn’t it be at least as difficult to get a gun license as a driver’s license—or better still, as difficult as it is to get a private pilot’s license? Gun owners should have to prove their competency and their ability to exercise good judgment, just as other licenses require. Responsible gun owners will consider every other alternative before pulling out a gun, even in states such as California that have a “castle doctrine” that permits, in certain circumstances, a homeowner to use force (including deadly force) in self-defense against an intruder. Gun owners’ first thought should always be to avoid confrontations in the first place, and they should have a clear understanding of when using a firearm for self-defense is acceptable.

I realize that the phrase responsible gun owner has become a trope of the gun-rights lobby, but behind the cliché, it can actually mean something. Every two years, I take six hours of firearms training with an off-duty police detective. Most of the day is spent on finding ways to remove myself from a dangerous situation before things escalate. Can I run? Can I hide? Running and hiding are not cowardice; they mean taking the higher moral ground of avoiding confrontation in a situation where the person seemingly threatening you might be drunk, or off their meds, or simply confused about which is their car or the right address."

I highly recommend this read, if you can access it. It reflects a lot of my personal experience. I have twice prepared to use my gun in defense, and neither time was required to, much to my relief. The second time it was never unholstered. No one even knew I was armed. A responsible gun owner is one who knows to refrain from using it unless absolutely necessary.

I would disagree with him...needing a gun does not mean you live in the ghetto. Sometimes it means you live in the country where wild animals also share territory with you...and sometimes it is because you deposit cash into a business account and have to deposit that cash at night. Sometimes it is because you divorced a violent spouse that has threatened your life....sometimes it is just because you like to collect them. It doesn't matter if a person needs a gun or not...if they are legally competent to own one that is their right. I do believe in certain requirements, background checks, ballistics, registration, etc...but I do not believe in whole disarmament or having to explain why you need a gun and letting the government decide if your need is real.

 

[ClaraD]

Owning a gun and using it for recreational purposes is also a ton of fun, and that alone is a good enough reason for someone to own a gun.



No, don't be ridiculous. Owning a gun is not nearly as complicated or dangerous as driving a car or flying a plane.



You don't need a license to own a car. But it's funny that you mention California because, even though it is overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats, you don't need a license to own a car OR a gun there.

what recreational purposes? Other than practicing at a shooting range (not recreational IMO...) or hunting (also not really recreational unless you kill for the fun of it. I don't particularly care for folks that find it fun to kill animals just for the hell of it... for those who use a gun to kill an animal that is a threat (ie a pit bull that is threatening you, a gator that is coming toward you or a child or pet, a bobcat(they are mean as hell even though they are cute) a mountain lion, etc...or hunting for food sources that you are going to use...fishing, crabbing, deer, turkey, wild hogs, etc...

 

[ttwtt78640]

I would disagree with him...needing a gun does not mean you live in the ghetto. Sometimes it means you live in the country where wild animals also share territory with you...and sometimes it is because you deposit cash into a business account and have to deposit that cash at night. Sometimes it is because you divorced a violent spouse that has threatened your life....sometimes it is just because you like to collect them. It doesn't matter if a person needs a gun or not...if they are legally competent to own one that is their right. I do believe in certain requirements, background checks, ballistics, registration, etc...but I do not believe in whole disarmament or having to explain why you need a gun and letting the government decide if your need is real.

I mostly agree, but question what you meant by “registration”. I have (Texas state) registration requirements in order to use my two work trailers on public roadways, which costs me over $100/year. Having unregistered guns costs me nothing in annual registration fees and I want that to remain so.

 

[ClaraD]

I mostly agree, but question what you meant by “registration”. I have (Texas state) registration requirements in order to use my two work trailers on public roadways, which costs me over $100/year. Having unregistered guns costs me nothing in annual registration fees and I want that to remain so.

registration as in proof of who owns the gun....not in requiring a 'fee' for registration...just proof of ownership. So, if I sell you a .380 Smith and Wesson there would be a registered transfer of ownership and before any gun is sold there should be ballistics that match that gun...(so even an illegal gun would have a record of ballistics if that were the case and with registered proof of who owns the gun it can be traced back....of course if it is stolen then it would be traced to a report that it was stolen...it would make it in theory easier to track crimes and where guns are when they are taken and where they end up. It would also allow for recovery of a stolen gun.

 

[RF667799]

No goat involved. I just find it more interesting to have either intelligent or humorous discussions. Hearing the same tired old defections time after time is not exactly interesting.

Then maybe you should have an argument other than the old trite, "Tell it to..." emotionalism.

 

[ttwtt78640]

registration as in proof of who owns the gun....not in requiring a 'fee' for registration...just proof of ownership. So, if I sell you a .380 Smith and Wesson there would be a registered transfer of ownership and before any gun is sold there should be ballistics that match that gun...(so even an illegal gun would have a record of ballistics if that were the case and with registered proof of who owns the gun it can be traced back....of course if it is stolen then it would be traced to a report that it was stolen...it would make it in theory easier to track crimes and where guns are when they are taken and where they end up. It would also allow for recovery of a stolen gun.

Do you have that in your state? If so, I can’t imagine that is being done without charging a ‘user fee’. The only place where I’ve ever lived with gun registration was in Guam (1982-1985) and they charged fees for a FOID (license to be armed) and for each registered gun.

Gun laws in Guam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ClaraD]

Do you have that in your state? If so, I can’t imagine that is being done without charging a ‘user fee’. The only place where I’ve ever lived with gun registration was in Guam (1982-1985) and they charged fees for a FOID (license to be armed) and for each registered gun.

Gun laws in Guam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't have that in my state..it is a suggestion as to what I support in reference to gun ownership...and I added that I do not support a fee being attached to it and the reason is because gun ownership is a right that is given to of age, law-abiding citizens that are of sound mind.