U.S. Gun Violence

Post Reply New Topic

I almost forgot about you!


In previous threads, you've indicated that you don't have the time on the range that I have . You also believe that shooting ranges are dangerous and full of right wing zealots, which I know from experience that they aren't. It helps to have this experience to draw on when making a plea for more of...........what you apparently don't know enough about.


Yes, gun control is a slippery slope, and when the desired results aren't met (and they won't be); more gun control.


But the bulk of firearms safety training and range supervision (again, I'm an RSO) is a product of the NRA, the organization you feel is responsible for blocking you're list of "common sense" gun control desires that you're not going to get for a long time......if ever.

Oh, now that is nice.

Well? Are you sorry that you asked the question, yet? Maybe another 40 pages to go, before this one eventually runs out of steam?

Nope, not yet. I'm still hoping someone invents the phaser - then we could just stun people.

Be careful what you wish for, the Taser was created and marketed with just that purpose, and look at how well that's worked out.

The Taser is so clumsy and it seems that often police use it out of laziness and people end up getting hurt and even dying . The technology needs refinement.

With regards to the second amendment, I certainly do. However, when it comes to your own view of gun laws and the relationship of libertarianism to them, you would also. Compromise probably would dissatisfy both of us but I think it would be progress in the right direction. I can see where you are coming from but aside from your love of firearms, I cannot see any reason why your position should appeal to me. Libertarianism, in my view does not function as a particularly good basic axiom but I am open to the idea that it offers a useful opinion on a particular situation.



I can see that you value consistency within your own position quite highly but citing difficulty in enforcing laws in a country the size of the USA while being in favour of a small government is a bit difficult to reconcile.



Any PDW is pretty ugly but somehow that one looks even worse.



This is probably where I find your argument least appealing. I can almost see an argument in favour of a social contract between citizens that responsibly relate to one another in a world of firearms. The idea of a well armed and responsible citizen, who takes care of their community as a part of their civic duty, is foreign but at least approachable to me. I saw such a social contract in Virginia and although it was weird, it was something I could approach and understand. However, the concept that one should use a firearm to protect ones self against the lack of a social contract does not appeal to me at all as a solution. The need to carry for personal protection from fellow citizens is evidence of failure of both the social contract between responsible persons and governance from the top. A citizen carrying a weapon in fear from their fellow citizens, as a basic principle of community, fails utterly to appeal to me at all, either as an efficient or effective solution. Libertarianism really offers us nothing on structural issues that still exist in situations where governance is minimal and citizens are actively irresponsible.

I never said I was in favor of small government, you just assumed that. All I'm in favor of is a government that is limited in scope to only protecting individual liberties. The size of that government is relevant to me only in a macro-economic sense - which is far outside the scope of this discussion.



I don't disagree with the sentiment - I believe very strongly that individuals are responsible for their own safety primarily, and the safety of others secondarily. It's a big part of the reason I carry a weapon - as a symbol of that commitment. I also happen to believe that firearms can be enjoyed at face value without any kind of necessitated, enumerated purpose.



There's a difference between recognizing the reality that bad people sometimes do bad things to good people and choosing to be able to do something about that, and developing an irrational fear of other people. I don't know where exactly in Virginia you were, but I live in Virginia, I've lived in Virginia my entire life, and I'm very likely one of the people you're talking about - raised with the exact values you're talking about.

This made me think . . . I wonder if the allure of guns is that it enhances ones power (over life and death) without much effort. Not to say that there's no skill to shooting and handling a gun, but it has to be easier than hand-to-hand combat or sword fighting.
I still think, though, that people have too much faith in them.

Fundamentally, a firearm is a force equalizer - in that sense it absolutely enhances ones power. Being shot with a Glock 19 is the same regardless of whether the shooter is 6ft 300 lbs, or 5 ft 80lbs.

As for whether it's easier to learn to shoot vs learning martial arts - I think at the end of the day it's about a wash. The mechanics of learning to shoot a gun accurately are relatively straight forward - but so are most entry-level martial arts skills. You progress from there to drills where you're moving/shooting, reacting to situations, shooting behind cover, etc. That's where things get very complicated.

I've had far more training in armed combat than I have in unarmed combat - but I've had enough training in both areas to know that the cycle of learning doesn't end. As long as you're willing to spend more time (and money) learning, there's someone out there who will teach you something new.

Last edited by sliqua-jcooter on 22 Jan 2014, 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well I cannot reason against someone who sees any compromise as part of a slippery slope on the way towards disarmament. Such a view is not really open to reason at all really. I already pointed out that in certain situations a drum magazine, in the hands of a well trained shooter is going to make them more efficient at killing and I can see a good reason for getting rid of them. As for your views about how fast you can reload, I have no reason to take such statements seriously. Having actually been shot at and fired under significant pressure, I can assure you that in the real world reloading and aiming is nothing like COD or your firing range.



I would disagree with that, there is a good reason for asking people why they want a weapon. If all they want to do is hollywood around with it I don't see any good reason why fellow citizens should not be able to say no. I also see you are selectively responding to my views, which is pretty standard for you. sliqua-jcooter mentioned that he had no reason to object to a person owning a grenade launcher, as far as I am concerned, that is an image we can legislate against, as are weapons designed to function as assault weapons.



I am a trained platoon commander and if someone acts like a juvenile on my range, they are not shooting there anymore. The fact that you cannot act in such a situation is actually a Reductio ad absurdum of your own position, the fact that you don't see that is quite telling.



Well if there is no such registry, then you have answered your own question in a much more telling way that you realises. You don't know and whats more you don't want to know. Why should I trust wilful ignorance. We have registration here in Australia and gun crime is much lower, as is crime more generally. If we go into foreign examples, you will discuss social-economic exceptionalism and the BS will continue ad infinitum because you really have no interest in finding an answer or being subject to criticism. After such a discussion it will never enter into your head, why someone from the outside would accept your view, unless they have a cognitive bias in favour of possessing weapons in the first place.



Ha. Like I said, I am a trained platoon commander and the equipment we use in the Aussie Army is top shelf, as is our training. I am fully qualified on the M4 but by all means, continue to be condescending and dismissive, it really helps the image of a responsible citizen when they disrespect people with military training.



More wilful ignorance. There are gas operated hunting rifles but as was pointed out earlier in this thread, many places don't allow them, for good reason, they are the definition of excessive. If you need an AR15 and a 30rnd mag to hunt a deer, deer hunting isn't for you.



I love the term 'active-shooter' it is the definition of a redundant statement. Are there inactive shooters? The quantifiably best method of stopping an active shooter is to stop them getting a gun in the first place... we did that in Australia, we went from one mass shooting a year to zero... ever since. Don't pretend you care about stopping them, if you did you would see the virtue in my position. The fact that you don't shows us the cognitive bias in your own view, you just want your guns and be honest with yourself and us... You don't really care all that much about the social cost. As for the tasteless exploiting of these incidents, well as I said earlier, everyone does it and both sides should just be honest about it. Not that you ever read the threads you post in.



Did I ever say anywhere that Americans are dumb? I honestly try to see the pro-gun point of view and I really love the Commonwealth of Virginia. I openly admit that I find it weird but I am trying to see the logic in the position, you clearly are not interested in seeing mine, so naturally your posts read like a man shouting at his keyboard. The welcome I received there from people was just fantastic and the wilderness there is amazing during fall, far better than anywhere else in the US. I am in favour of solutions that work, not dealing with people who don't care to listen. I can't see any good reason why a person with a closed mind, who does not want to listen to logic, should be trusted with a gun. Guns if they have a place at all in society must play a role in furthering the social contract, people who are purposefully ignorant achieve quite the opposite and are toxic to community, as a concept. The fact that such a social contract has developed, where ignorance is cited as a virtue shows me that the position you are putting forward clearly has issues and that I ought to be vary wary in recognising your claimed absolute right to carry firearms around children and run firing ranges with muppets on them. Perhaps you would care to step off of your soapbox and make a case as to why I should find your view appealing, rather than pontificating from an actively close minded position.

That's a nice halloween costume

<insert bayonet joke here>

Note how he's taking the picture from the *outside* of the gun range. Presumably because the RSO kicked him the f* out.

So you would not oppose a large scale ATF operation to make it impossible to ship weapons between state lines? You see nothing in your ideology that might conflict with the enforcement of contemporary firearms laws?



Well I would disagree with the last point, because I see them as tools that need enumerated purpose, as did the framers. However, I can see where you are coming from with regards to personal security and taking responsibly for yourself. I travel often in the less secure parts of the world and often openly carry firearms when I am there. What I would point to there is that my carrying the weapon, relates purely to myself and does little to make the place I am in safer, quite the opposite really. Taking someone, even the theoretical perfect gun owning citizen and transplanting them somewhere that the same social contract does not exist is not a solution. Theoretically you could have such a social contract but I don't see that as naturally developing and given how rare it is on planet earth, should give you pause as to how difficult it is to establish. That being said I can see where you are coming from, in relation to yourself, that solution is personal and not systematic. Hence my critic that libertarianism offers no solution to structural issues that exist in matters that are not solved by limited government. Social contracts exist betweens citizen, not simply between the citizens and their own personal sense of security.



I have been to most of the major locations in Virginia, my favourite places were the Shenandoah Valley and Monticello. The food however, was not the best... and drive through banks freak me out (although they are not unique to Virginia).

I think that would be a little misguided - after all guns have to be shipped between states from manufacturer to dealer in order to actually be sold. If you're asking if I see glaringly obvious holes in the FFL program that should be fixed, the answer is yes.


I know you would, and we're not really going anywhere with this particular point.


I think the difference here is context. I'm assuming that when you're in these places carrying, you're doing so in a military capacity and not a personal one. The message there is clear: I'm a soldier, I'm carrying a weapon to defend my life and I don't give a damn about the guy who robs a convenience store (insert whatever local theft target you want).

When a police officer carries a weapon, the message is subtly different: I'm a police officer, I'm carrying a weapon in support of my job, which is to catch law breakers. If you so much as shoplift a pack of gum, my job is to arrest you.

When a private citizen carries a weapon, the message is again different: I'm a citizen, I'm carrying a weapon because I want to protect people, including myself, from harm. I don't really care if you take a candy bar, but you'd better not try to rape anybody while I'm around.

I believe that, in the same way that police wear uniforms as a deterrent to crime, me carrying a weapon is similarly a deterrent. It's certainly debatable whether that is a valid theory (I debate that even with other gun owners all the time) - but it's the theory I choose to live by. If it does some small amount of good in the world then that's great - if it doesn't, then call me an idiot at my eulogy - but it certainly won't cause any harm.



My family has a house out toward Winchester, which is just past the northern part of the valley. The food gets better the closer to DC you get - some of the restaurants in Middleburg and Aldie are extremely good, and so are most of the restaurants in the VA wine country - though also extremely expensive. The main highway that runs through the valley is college row - so most of the towns/cities around there are geared toward college-aged budgets.

It's funny that you mentioned the drive-through banks, because walking into a bank carrying is one of only two places I get really uncomfortable (for obvious reasons) - the other being the Metro subway system on the VA side of DC.

I generally carry in those countries as a private citizen, not in a military capacity. I go on research for academic purposes (although I did not carry a weapon there the last firing range I found myself on was in Pyongyang). The weapon is strictly to keep myself safe. The citizen carrying a weapon relates mostly to their own security, there is nothing like security being added to the social contract when I do so. Rather, it is the reflection of the lack of a social contract that encourages me to do so. When I am in a more secure part of the world, I don't feel the need to carry and I see that as a definite improvement. I can see some situations where an armed populace could have a positive impact on the broad social contract but I can see none where an individual has one. The utility is entirely personal.