The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

[Granite]

So in war, if there is an imbalance of firepower the side with less will have less violence? Interesting logic.

One of these is not like the other.

 

[CabinetMaker]

So in war, if there is an imbalance of firepower the side with less will have less violence? Interesting logic.

This thread is not about war. What happens in a combat zone in no way resembles urban America.

 

[ok doser]

Many people think that having more guns in public is a good thing, that if more people were armed, those with bad intentions would be less likely to act.

and yet, we continually see these multiple shootings taking place in venues that restrict the law abiding from carrying

you just keep on believing that's a coincidence if you want

 

[CabinetMaker]

and yet, we continually see these multiple shootings taking place in venues that restrict the law abiding from carrying

you just keep on believing that's a coincidence if you want

Did you miss the point that more guns in the hands of under trained and unqualified gun owners leads to things like victims getting shot in the head or somebody firing randomly in a parking lot? Are those good things in your mind?

Question for you. If you are out in public and a gun fight breaks out, how much training would like the good guy who is pointing a fun in your general direction to have?

 

[chair]

Uh...yes. Yes, she did. And I'm sure this maniac thought she was doing the right thing.

Years ago, my father was a real estate agent in Michigan and often had need to carry a good amount of cash on his person. He requested a concealed carry permit and was denied, despite the personal references of a state rep and his broker, who happened to be a Freemason in good standing with the community. ...

Years ago I worked with a security consultant. There was a rash of armed bank robberies here, and a bank asked him what to do about it. They were thinking in terms of armed guards in the bank branches.

He told them to do...nothing. Nothing at all. A shootout in a bank could result in wounded and dead customers. The potential damage from lawsuits would be much larger than the relatively small amount of cash that the bandit was taking.

 

[Granite]

Years ago I worked with a security consultant. There was a rash of armed bank robberies here, and a bank asked him what to do about it. They were thinking in terms of armed guards in the bank branches.

He told them to do...nothing. Nothing at all. A shootout in a bank could result in wounded and dead customers. The potential damage from lawsuits would be much larger than the relatively small amount of cash that the bandit was taking.

Good advice for a bank but when you're a fellow alone in the sticks twenty minutes from the nearest town it might considered prudent to pack heat every once in a while. Time and place for everything.

 

[PureX]

Uh...yes. Yes, she did. And I'm sure this maniac thought she was doing the right thing.

Years ago, my father was a real estate agent in Michigan and often had need to carry a good amount of cash on his person. He requested a concealed carry permit and was denied, despite the personal references of a state rep and his broker, who happened to be a Freemason in good standing with the community. Point being--at least back then--a concealed carry's not exactly easy to come by in the Wolverine State. Maybe things have eased up over the years but I'd be very interested in knowing how exactly this woman was licensed to carry and what her background is.

I don't know; Michigan has always run a close second to Idaho in terms of bizarre backwoods isolationist gun cults. :chuckle:

 

[PureX]

Years ago I worked with a security consultant. There was a rash of armed bank robberies here, and a bank asked him what to do about it. They were thinking in terms of armed guards in the bank branches.

He told them to do...nothing. Nothing at all. A shootout in a bank could result in wounded and dead customers. The potential damage from lawsuits would be much larger than the relatively small amount of cash that the bandit was taking.

Yes, but that means nothing to the righteousness obsessed, gun-totin' super-conservative. For them, shooting a dozen bystanders or so is acceptable so long as the "bad guy" gets the maximum punishment possible as quickly as possible: erased from the face of the Earth in a hail of bullets.

 

[Granite]

I don't know; Michigan has always run a close second to Idaho in terms of bizarre backwoods isolationist gun cults. :chuckle:

Hey, first, pal. The Michigan Militia led the way. Accept no substitutes!K:

 

[fzappa13]

I've only been here since '03 but this is absolutely the silliest thread I have seen yet.

Second amendment ... "well armed"

Define armed.

 

[Granite]

I've only been here since '03 but this is absolutely the silliest thread I have seen yet.

Second amendment ... "well armed"

Define armed.

Where did the phrase "well armed" come from? The text of the amendment reads "well regulated."

 

[HisServant]

Lets take a look at that amendment then:
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Does "well regulated militia" mean that anybody who wants a gun should own have one, or more? Or does "a well regulated militia" mean something more. How is militia defined?

Militia

A group of private citizens who train for military duty in order to be ready to defend their state or country in times of emergency. A militia is distinct from regular military forces, which are units of professional soldiers maintained both in war and peace by the federal government.


It seems to me that the second amendment places certain responsibilities on gun owners that the government has the authority to enforce.

This type of thinking has been dunked many. many times... the right to bear arms has nothing to do with being part of a regulated militia.

The right to bear arms was embedded in the founding fathers ethos... without that right, there never could have been a revolution... quite a few founding fathers also point to the fact that the right to bear arms was to make politicians afraid of the people who elected them so that they would never become tyrannical.

Anyhow, the problem with guns in this country is a complicated one... its a mental health and cultural problem. It also is a herald of the break down of society that is happening.

 

[CabinetMaker]

This type of thinking has been dunked many. many times... the right to bear arms has nothing to do with being part of a regulated militia.

The right to bear arms was embedded in the founding fathers ethos... without that right, there never could have been a revolution... quite a few founding fathers also point to the fact that the right to bear arms was to make politicians afraid of the people who elected them so that they would never become tyrannical.

Anyhow, the problem with guns in this country is a complicated one... its a mental health and cultural problem. It also is a herald of the break down of society that is happening.

Maybe its time for that to change. The current system is not working so well so it needs to change. Instead of banning guns, place requirements on owners for owning and carrying a loaded fire arm in public.

Guns are unique. Cars kill people but that is not their primary function. In fact, cars are designed to keep people safe. Most knives are designed for kitchen use though they can be used as a weapon. Guns are designed to kill from a distance. That is their primary design function. If you are going to carry a device whose primary function is to kill then it seems reasonable to make sure that you are qualified and competent to do so. That means regular qualification and training and regular psych evaluations. People change and the person who is fully competent to carry today may not be five years from now because they were involved in an accident and head injuries have left the person hearing voices.

I am not saying that we ban guns, I am not blaming guns, I am talking about the person holding the gun. I am saying that we put the responsibility for owning and carrying a gun on the owner and that those responsibilities should be significant.

 

[HisServant]

Maybe its time for that to change. The current system is not working so well so it needs to change. Instead of banning guns, place requirements on owners for owning and carrying a loaded fire arm in public.

Guns are unique. Cars kill people but that is not their primary function. In fact, cars are designed to keep people safe. Most knives are designed for kitchen use though they can be used as a weapon. Guns are designed to kill from a distance. That is their primary design function. If you are going to carry a device whose primary function is to kill then it seems reasonable to make sure that you are qualified and competent to do so. That means regular qualification and training and regular psych evaluations. People change and the person who is fully competent to carry today may not be five years from now because they were involved in an accident and head injuries have left the person hearing voices.

I am not saying that we ban guns, I am not blaming guns, I am talking about the person holding the gun. I am saying that we put the responsibility for owning and carrying a gun on the owner and that those responsibilities should be significant.

I disagree... restrict guns too much and you will end up with knife mass murders like we have had 2 of in the last couple years in China... people that want to kill others will find a way... and will find a way to get an illegal gun if they want to.

Then there is the FACT that the largest mass murders in this country did not involve guns at all... 911 involved box cutters, Timothy McVeigh did it with a Van, fertilizer and diesel fuel... back in the 20's a guy bombed 4 schools in Michigan.

With a couple trips to different stores, anyone with a basic knowledge in chemistry could do way more damage than 1 person with a gun.

Maybe you should learn about the failure of the war on drugs, prohibition, etc. Regulation is NOT the way to deal with this particular type of problem.

 

[Granite]

I disagree... restrict guns too much and you will end up with knife mass murders like we have had 2 of in the last couple years... people that want to kill others will find a way... and will find a way to get an illegal gun if they want to.

Maybe you should learn about the failure of the war on drugs, prohibition, etc. Regulation is NOT the way to deal with a problem.

So let's just do nothing.:yawn:

 

[HisServant]

So let's just do nothing.:yawn:

If you want to do something... do it the right way and talk to your state representatives about trying to repeal that part of the amendment.

Otherwise, no matter what 'common sense' regulation someone dreams up with will eventually fail in the courts and end up being nothing more than a colossal waste of tax payers dollars.

 

[Granite]

If you want to do something... do it the right way and talk to your state representatives about trying to repeal that part of the amendment.

Otherwise, no matter what 'common sense' regulation someone dreams up with will eventually fail in the courts and end up being nothing more than a colossal waste of tax payers dollars.

So rather than something tangible with results that can at least be observed you'd prefer folks spin their wheels.

 

[HisServant]

So rather than something tangible with results that can at least be observed you'd prefer folks spin their wheels.

What good are results if the laws get struck down by the supreme's...

But then again, I honestly do not see how you could measure tangible results in this case.

Reality.. its a good thing.. maybe you should get in touch with it sometime!

 

[CabinetMaker]

I disagree... restrict guns too much and you will end up with knife mass murders like we have had 2 of in the last couple years in China... people that want to kill others will find a way... and will find a way to get an illegal gun if they want to.

Yes, they will. But if you, HisServant, pulls a gun in public and starts shooting, I want to know that you have been trained and are qualified to use that gun without accidentally shooting my kids in the head. If you do not have that training you should not be allowed to draw a gun in a public place. If you don't have that training, pulling your gun is far more likely to make things worse than better.

Then there is the FACT that the largest mass murders in this country did not involve guns at all... 911 involved box cutters, Timothy McVeigh did it with a Van, fertilizer and diesel fuel... back in the 20's a guy bombed 4 schools in Michigan.

And you walking around with a gun that you are just itching to use would have prevented those how, exactly?

With a couple trips to different stores, anyone with a basic knowledge in chemistry could do way more damage than 1 person with a gun.

Maybe you should learn about the failure of the war on drugs, prohibition, etc. Regulation is NOT the way to deal with this particular type of problem.

This is beyond the scope of this thread. This thread is discussing guns, not bombs. How is your gun going to prevent somebody from building a bomb? How is your gun going to prevent somebody from leaving a back pack in a crowd?

 

[Stripe]

Stupid OP assumes people cannot get training and that criminals do not need it.