The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1 - 20 of total 5937 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
bullfrog

Trad climber
Topic Author's Original Post - Jul 20, 2012 - 11:00pm PT
Okay folks. This is your space to talk about all pro and anti gun issues.

I am not the moderator. I probably won't even show up here that often.

keep it civil, and on topic. :-)
adatesman

climber
philadelphia, pa
Jul 20, 2012 - 11:54pm PT
is it even fair to do this without Fatty?

In any event, probably too soon.
Captain...or Skully

climber
Jul 20, 2012 - 11:57pm PT
Make anything you like illegal. If I possess the knowledge, I'll just make more. You lose.
A device is a device is a device. Are you going to ban knowledge?
GhoulweJ

Trad climber
El Dorado Hills, CA
Jul 20, 2012 - 11:58pm PT
bullfrog

Trad climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2012 - 12:00am PT
toadgas,

If you'd like I can fork off a bullfrog and toadgas stink it up thread. Not sure how popular that would be though...
bullfrog

Trad climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2012 - 12:03am PT
Ghoulwej,

You instantly made me think of this:

http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/2007/12/26/hello-kitty-ar-15---evil-black-rifle-meets-cute-and.aspx
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Jul 21, 2012 - 12:07am PT

I think my wife would prefer an EBR.
Salamanizer

Trad climber
The land of Fruits & Nuts!
Jul 21, 2012 - 12:18am PT
How about we just ban psychos?


You will never remove all guns from criminals hands. EVER!
So why don't we put another one (or two) in the hands of a sane person in that theater. It would have changed the outcome significantly.
zBrown

Ice climber
chingadero de chula vista
Jul 21, 2012 - 12:32am PT
^ I doubt it.
Jaybro

Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
Jul 21, 2012 - 12:33am PT
Actually I thought Shack asked a good question at the turning point in that other thread.

In an ideal situation, someone like he mentioned ( armed And qualified to be so) could possibly be beneficial. But would an armed person in that situation be more likely to possess those qualifications, and nerve under fire, or more likely to be a further danger?

Spock could do it. So could Jules, or Harry Calihan. I suspect Cragman could decide at the moment the viability of acting. And of course there are others.

If all potential do gooders were of their um, caliber, we'd be in good hands. But is that likely to be the case?

In which direction do you want to err?

Also, related, doesn't someone shooting back at an armored thug in a darkened room, make themselves and those close by, targets themselves?
bullfrog

Trad climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2012 - 12:33am PT

How about we just ban psychos?
The individual in the thread this was split from passed a background check. He had all his guns legally.

This also begs the question: assuming mental illness as all us arm chair psychologists are doing, perhaps we need to focus more on mental heath care?

So why don't we put another one (or two) in the hands of a sane person in that theater. It would have changed the outcome significantly.


I'm not so sure there weren't a couple there already. Maybe there weren't but it sounds like you are making a heck of a lot of assumptions about a situation we all have spotty details on and you were not directly privy to.
(More armchair sports...)
bullfrog

Trad climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2012 - 12:41am PT
jaybro,

Wish my post had come in slightly before yours. Yours are all good points and more worth discussing.
Shack

Big Wall climber
Reno NV
Jul 21, 2012 - 01:08am PT
Jaybro, everyone I know that actually carries, takes it very seriously and trains/practice more than most cops.
Not kidding.

As far as how would anyone react or perform under fire...
You never know until it happens...
Even most cops have never been under fire in those circumstances so you can't assume anything.

What could possibly be done by someone with a gun?
Worst case scenario...nothing.

Best case scenario, the citizen is carrying a handgun with a flashlight.
The flashlights sold for guns are super f-ing bright (between 150 and 220 lumens) and will blind the bad guy long enough to blow his head off. There is no way to look at someone when they are pointing it at you.


BTW, my brother in law was the training officer for a while, on the LA Sheriffs "live fire" shoot/don't shoot training simulator.
Basically you watch video scenarios on a giant screen and you react to the situations. When you shoot back at the screen, you are using live ammo!
I got to do this and I did pretty well, but it is still all academic until real lead is coming back at you.

Binks

climber
Uranus
Jul 21, 2012 - 01:17am PT
How does one argue with someone convinced that the routine massacre of our children is the price we must pay for our freedom to have guns, or rather to have guns that make us feel free?
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jul 21, 2012 - 01:43am PT
Okay folks. This is your space to talk about all pro and anti gun issues.

I am not the moderator. I probably won't even show up here that often.

keep it civil, and on topic. :-)

Why on earth are you starting this thread, if you have no interest in partipating in the topic?

This is called trolling.
bullfrog

Trad climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2012 - 01:53am PT
Why on earth are you starting this thread, if you have no interest in partipating in the topic?

This is called trolling.

1: I clearly have some interest as I have commented several times already on this thread. Please read the whole thread before posting. ;-)

2: This thread was forked from another where some felt the gun debate was a bit tired and insensitive.

3: I'm not sure where you pulled your definition of trolling from but I am guessing this doesn't fit it. How does going off topic and attacking the thread author about saying he might be disinterested in his own thread sound for a definition of "trolling" though?

Have a good weekend...
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 21, 2012 - 01:56am PT
Once you've played with real guns you don't mind not having some wimpy surrogate...

Credit: Reilly
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Jul 21, 2012 - 01:56am PT
It takes both the restriction of weapons and the will of the citizens to live in a cooperative and peaceful society for gun bans to work. The reality is, Americans love violence at every level, from movies to video games to shock and awe in other people's countries. Until we change that mindset, it is useless to ban guns although we can tweak the situation for the better by outlawing assault weapons for example.

Every Swiss man has a weapon in his house and a state mandated amount of ammunition along with it. He is also required to do a specific amount of target practice every year from the age of 18-52. Yet there is not more than one gun murder every ten years in Switzerland, with these weapons. The difference is in the minds of Swiss people, not the weapons. Likewise, the rest of western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Asia east of Pakistan.

The real question then, is what in our culture causes us to tolerate violence at every level, at the same time we regulate every other safety issue to the nth and often ridiculous degree? Until Americans figure out that strange dichotomy, we won't get very far. It's always easier though, to shout slogans than deconstruct our national mythologies of which we have so many.
Salamanizer

Trad climber
The land of Fruits & Nuts!
Jul 21, 2012 - 02:00am PT
Hillrat has said it better than I.

Yes, we must ban everything. To be safer. More regulation, more control!

People were safer 50 years ago, we had less laws 50 years ago. How can this be?

There is no utopia. You people don't get it... THERE IS NO UTOPIA!!!
What is the meaning of life? Choice!!! Without choice, there is nothing.



Edit; Jan, you're a delusional idiot. Sorry to be harsh, but in this instance it is what it is.

Shack

Big Wall climber
Reno NV
Jul 21, 2012 - 02:01am PT
Yet there is not more than one gun murder every ten years in Switzerland, with these weapons.
Jan, not according to Wikipedia...

Gun crime

Further information: Gun violence and Crime in Switzerland
Police statistics for the year 2006[14] records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
Messages 1 - 20 of total 5937 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews