The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

[Dan Emanuel]

Guns may be fun to shoot, but they are also very dangerous devices. So even though they're fun, we need to mind that danger...

Could not agree more.

...And we aren't currently doing that; the result of which is that a lot of Americans are being killed unnecessarily so that some people can "have fun" with guns...

Starting with the end: thats a straw man. Nobody has argued that gun's are fun, therefore shut up. At least, nobody I know, and nobody whose being serious.

Next, I don't agree that it is because of the way we are handling gun's statutorily, that mass shooting's occur. We are not responsible for people making free choice's, unless we have done or are doing something to stoke the fire's of the more violent element's in our world. We permit private gun ownership --we don't encourage murder or violent crime.

Now two thing's I've mentioned before: American's in particular are dealing with the wake of many disaster's that've plagued our history, and 1 of those is the terrorism perpetrated against us by organized criminal's. Before these people decided to exploit the R.K.B.A., "gun control" didn't exist because it didn't need to exist. Once the bad guy's opened Pandoras Box though, then we had to do something, and we simultaneously raised the stake's on law enforcement against the organized criminal's, and on restricting some of there favorite tool's of the trade.

It had nothing to do with school shooting's; gun control. It had to do with organized crime. Later on, it had to do with racism. Now, we are looking down the barrel of gun so to speak, set to fire off many more mass shooting's, perpetrated not by mobster's or drug cartel's (Mexico and Central/South America deal with these daily), but by . . .

. . . by who? The other thing I've mentioned is that we should consider raising the minimum age for the R.K.B.A. I can't find the data but I'm going to go out on a firm limb and say that darn near every 1 of the murderer's were under 30. We've lived through our 20's. We can see with hindsight how tumultuous a time that was. As time go's on, it get's harder and harder to grow up. Its some sort of covert societal experiment that we're executing right now, seeing how far we can push off the genuine adulthood of humanity. Clearly, since darn near every 1 of these mass shooting's was done by a youth, maybe we need to adjust the minimum age. Maybe growing up slowly is quite good for humanity; who know's? I'm eager to learn the result's myself. But in the meantime, it seem's that if people are going to take longer and longer to mature enough to NOT shoot up a movie theater, mall or elementary school, that maybe we should raise the minimum age.

...And that's a stupid trade-off, by most reasonable people's standards...

Again, thats a straw man.

...But no one is recommending that we can ever have fun shooting guns, again. All that's being suggested is that we set up an effective method of regulating gun ownership and use that limits the danger they pose to society...

And what I'm suggesting is that the real danger to society is having so many mentally, emotionally, etc., immature young men, who are legally able to acquire any legal firearm that they can afford.

...And the fact that so may people can't see the sense in that trade-off is scary to me...

Same straw man again.

...Because they are being so ideologically myopic, so irrationally paranoid, or just so flat out selfish that they don't care who dies as a result of the danger these weapons pose to society. And that's sad. Because we ought to care more about each other's well being then that.

We do care. We differ on how to address it.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

So what you're saying is that doing something fun makes it okay. I mean, so long's it makes you feel good.

Yes.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Ktoyou]

Have there been mass football-killings in the recent past?

Maybe so.

 

[Granite]

Yes.


DJ

1.0
​

:rotfl:

That is a very interesting perspective coming from a Christian.

 

[Yorzhik]

No, I'm not claiming that at all.

You certainly implied it. In your response you sarcastically said, "Yeah, that's it. Guns are for shooting "structures"."

I'm suggesting that guns were first designed for killing, and largely for killing people, and that the use in sports doesn't change that fact. A lot of sports originate in a similar way, where the practice of training to use a weapon becomes a part of the point. But the weapon that use for skeet shooting can be a lot different from one you'd use in an actual violent situation, just as the sword that I use to do Kendo is a lot different from an actual sword that you might take into battle.

So, what you should have said was "Yes, guns are for shooting structures, and they are also for killing people."

 

[Yorzhik]

That can be and is said of a lot of thing's beside's machine gun's. And rightly so.

We do restrict machine gun's, as I mentioned. But the Constitution doesn't say 1 way or another about whether it is legal for civilian's in civilian capacity to keep and bear machine gun's. The statute's are federal, and apparently they do not violate the Second Amendment, at least not enough for the Supreme Court to more than barely mention the topic during the two most recent Second Amendment case's.

Re: Restricting any particular machine gun
I agree with you're sentiment, with the condition that we ought to be able to restrict particular machine gun's based on operator safety.

Which I know sound's kind of silly, but the reality is that firearm's are consumer good's and consumer's deserve the same type of safety watch-dog benefit's that consumer's of all other good's receive as a matter of course. Nobody want's a machine gun prone to faulty discharge's or chamber explosion's, i.e.


DJ

1.1
​

Right. What I'm saying is that weapons of self defense, like a pistol, shot gun, or rifle, should not be restricted, as opposed to the larger weapons mentioned, as a matter of principle.

 

[CabinetMaker]

It doesn't matter what the constitution says, what matters is what is true. And it's true that God grants rights. In fact, if God is not the guarantor of rights, then rights don't exist.

Actually it does matter what the constitutions says as that is the governing document for the United States of America.

You just said that all people are Chuck Noris, an MMA fighter, or a soldier, or you.

You just said that.

No, I didn't, you just grossly misinterpreted it to service your own interests. What I said is there are other method of self defense that are highly effective and do not require a gun.

Why do I grant you the grace of having a conversation with me?

You need more mocking and less talking.

Is that what you call your participation, a conversation? I'll let you in on a little secret, your not that good at it.

 

[Yorzhik]

I assure you, I can handle it well, even at my age, it is in my blood and part of me. Although not necessary, since I am able to one shot kill with a 45 acp.

No doubt. I was introduced to automatic fire by my gunsmith grandfather who got one and we took it to the range. I think I was about 12 and I think the gun was either 9mm or .45. Anyhow, no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't get but the first round to hit the target even if I felt like I got back on target. So I wasn't surprised when in the army we were introduced to automatic fire and found it less than exhilarating unlike many of the other recruits. I was also on ammo loading detail and all those useless rounds seemed like a big waste of time as we had filled a many crates with loaded magazines over an afternoon and it was all used up in a few minutes with very few "targets down." I was glad to hear about the 3 round burst that was coming as a new design; seemed like a good idea to me although I ended my contract before they were introduced. I haven't heard if anyone thought it worked well.

 

[CabinetMaker]

And what I'm suggesting is that the real danger to society is having so many mentally, emotionally, etc., immature young men, who are legally able to acquire any legal firearm that they can afford.

This was my point from the start of this thread. It has never been about gun control, it has been about controlling who can safely handle a gun and be trusted with it in public.

Question: Do you want people who are mentally, emotionally, etc., immature young to be able to purchase guns?

If no, how do you propose to keep them from getting guns?

 

[Ktoyou]

It does take lots of practice. I will admit not having much in some years now, and I may think I am better than I am. Maybe?

Thank you for protecting us at home.

I believe to be wrong is not such an issue when one is right with God, being wrong in life is near meaningless. I wonder how many people really know this?

 

[Ktoyou]

This was my point from the start of this thread. It has never been about gun control, it has been about controlling who can safely handle a gun and be trusted with it in public.

Your posting does not bear this out, for if so, why are we arguing? Your means are didactic and one might argue the means you hold forms the real argument.

Why not be honest with people? Why fall back on what all sane persons will agree, as your defense, when you are also arguing to dictate the means as well?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Your posting does not bear this out, for if so, why are we arguing? Your means are didactic and one might argue the means you hold forms the real argument.

Why not be honest with people? Why fall back on what all sane persons will agree, as your defense, when you are also arguing to dictate the means as well?

I have been honest from the beginning of this thread. I have only ever said that if a person intends to carry and use a gun in public then they should be required to be properly trained. This is as much to protect them as it is the general public. Several on this thread have gone out of their way to distort what I have said because what I have said would limit some people from obtaining guns and it would mandate that people prove they are qualified to carry a gun in public.

 

[Ktoyou]

I have been honest from the beginning of this thread. I have only ever said that if a person intends to carry and use a gun in public then they should be required to be properly trained. This is as much to protect them as it is the general public. Several on this thread have gone out of their way to distort what I have said because what I have said would limit some people from obtaining guns and it would mandate that people prove they are qualified to carry a gun in public.

Again, and for the last time. It is the means you dictate which causes disagreement, not the premise itself. The title reveals this, it is provocative!

Learn, or be dull.

 

[Granite]

Again, and for the last time. It is the means you dictate which causes disagreement, not the premise itself. The title reveals this, it is provocative!

Learn, or be dull.

The fact that some people find the idea of mandatory gun training galling tells me they probably shouldn't be carrying in the first place.

 

[kmoney]

They are being upheld as a solution to mass shootings. Clearly, that is nonsense.

I agree on that much. I fail to see how registration and licensing/training will prevent these things. It's possible that some red flags would get raised during the registration/training process, but I don't think it would be frequent enough to make it a primary justification of changing the gun-buying process.

 

[kmoney]

From 2005-10 around 3,800 people died from unintentional shootings. In 2010 alone more than 70k people were treated for non lethal gun wounds. I'm looking for a breakdown of accident/victim of but haven't found it yet.

Thanks.

I suppose I'd say trimming the number of unintended fatalities is important enough,

:up: Certainly nothing to shrug off.

but I'd suggest that it would have a larger impact. Many of these people we're reading about, the murderers, trained with weapons in the limited sense of use proficiency at gun ranges. Tie that into a certification program that would have certifying individuals capable of posting red flags and I think you have a few more teeth in the process. I'm weary of seeing after action reports on individuals who raised those flags to friends, neighbors and family members who subsequently, for the most part, did nothing about it.

Perhaps. But what are those red flags? Do you stop someone based on a hunch? Are gun trainers qualified to see those red flags? Unless you are tying in a psychological exam.

 

[Town Heretic]

Thanks.

De nada.

:up: Certainly nothing to shrug off.

Every little bit. :thumb:

Perhaps. But what are those red flags? Do you stop someone based on a hunch? Are gun trainers qualified to see those red flags? Unless you are tying in a psychological exam.

I'm not sure that wouldn't be a bad idea. It could be gamed, of course, but I'm not sure someone who would put up a red flag on it would have the ability to do that...just spit balling to some extent. Nothing is going to be fool proof, but as with safety courses, an ounce of prevention...

 

[CabinetMaker]

Again, and for the last time. It is the means you dictate which causes disagreement, not the premise itself. The title reveals this, it is provocative!

Learn, or be dull.

It was intended to be provocative and many people missed the point entirely. The NRA likes to promote this idea that more guns mean less violence because the heroic gunslinger will shoot the bad guy. The article challenges that idea. It does not mean that I dictate anything, it means that I brought another piece of information to the discussion to be considered.

 

[rexlunae]

You certainly implied it. In your response you sarcastically said, "Yeah, that's it. Guns are for shooting "structures"."

The claim that was made was that "firearms" were "invented" to inflict damage upon structures. That's plainly not true. They were invented first to shoot and kill people and animals. Later, we found other uses, including uses against "structures", but the early firearms wouldn't have been much use against any real fortifications.

So, what you should have said was "Yes, guns are for shooting structures, and they are also for killing people."

DE was trying to broaden the conversation to include anything from nail guns to jackhammers. That's tangentially related to what's actually being suggested at best.

 

[Ktoyou]

It was intended to be provocative and many people missed the point entirely. The NRA likes to promote this idea that more guns mean less violence because the heroic gunslinger will shoot the bad guy. The article challenges that idea. It does not mean that I dictate anything, it means that I brought another piece of information to the discussion to be considered.

I am pro NRA, no amount of posting will change that, so what is the point?

No more than to begrudge others with your personal views. These anti-gun threads are virtually pointless because they have no effect, other than to bicker.

Now it is no more, regarding me, than getting in the 'last word' as such, seems to make you feel in the right, to validate you. So, post again and you will feel that sense of ego boost you seek.

So quote me again and aggrandize yourself into a false sense of accomplishment, I surly do not care.