Gun ban solution to mass murders?

OdonII

I really wish you would read my posts because the argument is all there and I wouldn’t have to keep repeating things.
Anyway -

This is very much not logic - just listen to yourself – you are saying that these people think having a very lethal weapon to be used to intimidate, threaten, and even to maim or kill is just the same as having a spare tyre in your car. If that is so, there is an incredible disconnect in that thinking.

What I have heard from some pro-gunners is that ‘if you don’t have a gun it could be a matter of life or dead’ (that you could be killed or tortured or have to watch your wife been raped) it is about having lethal force in your hands, the ability to maim or kill ‘just in case’ of attack. It is about fear.

If you get a flat tyre it is not a life or death situation it is not something to fear if you have a spare tyre you change it, if you don’t you ring the AA (or similar).

If you cannot see the difference between the two please explain why.

First of all this is not all about Sig.

But Sig is a gun enthusiast, by his own admission he likes to shoot guns, I think therefore you can say he is pro-gun, a pro-gunner.

The reason why I think he has a certain level of fear is because he has several guns that he has ‘just in case’. He feels enough fear to want to have (and think of as) some of his guns as his ‘just in case’ guns to he used to defend him from attack.

I believe he said he has a gun in his bedroom! I don’t even know if I have a spare tyre or if I do if it is actually serviceable.

 

The problem for me here is that nobody seems to have read my posts and so no one is actually address what I’ve said.

Sig why do you have ‘just in case’ guns and what ‘cases’ are they for, you have said you worry about a messy revolution and some kind of catastrophic social decline, but why do you think there would be a revolution and what reason could there he for the social decline?

I’m a great fan of dystopian stories, but to me they are just stories, I don’t feel the need for a ‘just in case’ gun (let alone several) why do you?

[edit] My point is why have a ‘just in case’ gun why not have a society where you didn’t feel so frightened of the future that you felt you needed a just in case gun?

 

I know it isn't. I read your earlier posts with that in mind. I think you are probably right generally speaking. You seem to be qualifying your comments with such things as 'general attitude' 'many feel they need guns to' 'of course not all Americans have this viewpoint and not everyone has it at the same intensity of feeling but I believe enough do to make the viewpoint prevalent' 'many Americans attitude toward guns' - so it doesn't necessarily have to apply to Siq.
Just because he is or might be a 'pro-gunner' doesn't mean all or any of your conclusions relate to Siq at all.
All we both seem to be asking is why are you seemingly applying the majority of your conclusions to Siq based on him being 'pro-gun' and him saying 'just in case'?
I think one minute Siq said something along the lines of: what you are saying isn't true, and where do you get your facts from?
Then said something like: Yeah, I guess some people are like that.
I tend to think there is a split - not 50/50 but not 99/Siq.
So my analogy with the spare tyre is that some people carry a spare or have a gun in their home - just in case something happens. End of story.
I said it was irrational. He disagreed.
I said it was because he could, and he said basically that's what it boils down to.
So my theory is: Siq has a gun in his bedroom because he can. Just in case.

I know, I know - to us it seems like all the things you say.
To us it seems unnecessary.
We just have to agree to disagree with him.

 

OdonII

I can agree we seem to disagree with him but what has that to do with this debate. I’m still trying to find out if he has any counter argument beyond telling me I’m wrong because he is telling me I’m wrong.

So to you wanting a spare tyre in your car in case you get a flat is exactly the same as wanting a lethal weapon handy so you can kill or main someone in case you are attacked.

What I’m saying is that if people in a society actually think in those terms then that society is in trouble.

 

I completely agree with that approach. One counter that often gets raised, from the likes of people such as Sharpton, the NAACP, etc...., is that trying to get rid of ghetto culture is code for trying to get rid of black culture. This is the uphill struggle.

 

Sorry to intrude here, but I've lived thirty years in San Francisco where it's near impossible to get a carry permit and an equal number of years in Texas and Arizona where no permit is required to carry concealed. My experience bears out the truth of the saying "an armed society is a polite society".

 

Ranger


Thank you, you seem to back up my theory. If you want to read the longer version please look above.

But here is an edited shorter version.

*

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries…..

…..As I’ve said guns are a means of intimidation, the whole movement to legalise the carrying of a concealed weapon is based on the premise that ‘criminals’ (and anyone else) will be too afraid to act badly.

The view prevalent among pro-gunners that America is a more polite society because of widespread gun ownership is also based on this idea of repression it basically about the threat of – ‘be polite or else’ - not real politeness but politeness at the point of a gun.

*

So is it true that an armed society is a politer society, or is it just that an armed society is a paranoid society that is just being polite out of fear?

And it begs the question, why not try and bring about a society where people are polite because they are polite not just out of fear that they might be shot?

The thing is that, maybe you already have it, maybe your society is as polite as it is and guns and gun ownership have nothing to do with it, it’s just a myth and says more about the mentality of pro-gunners than about reality?

Because I’ve been to the US (well California at least) and I’ve meet a lot of Americans from all over the states, and the thing is that they seem as polite (or not) as any other people I’ve meet and I’ve live and travelled extensively in Europe and I’d say that there is really very little difference in the range and the amount of politeness between those people and Americans, and it seems they don’t need the threat of getting shot to be polite.

So why is it that so many pro-gunners in the US think they need guns to have polite Americans?

 

There seems to be two debates.
One about him and you assuming he has a gun because he has a certain level of fear, and him saying fear didn't enter the equation.
On that, he doesn't really have to defend himself.
If he is saying you are wrong about him, then you are wrong.
What do you want him to do? Post a psychological assessment?
The second debate seems to be about 'pro-gunners' which seems to flip from some to all - in relation to the theory you have about them.
Was that your argument to prove he must feel a certain amount of fear?
If so, then he can have a debate about the broader question if he wants.
Imho, he doesn't have to defend himself regarding his own personal feelings.

No, no it isn't exactly the same. However, I guess the same mentality could be applied for why people do and do not have a spare tyre.
Fear. Just in case. Being prepared. I want one. Not needed. Don't need it.

I don't know what he would do if he was confronted by an intruder or heard an intruder in his home.

 

[FONT=&quot]OdonII[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So you accept that he has absolutely no fear of attack yet he has several ‘just in case’ guns in the eventuality of a catastrophic slide in social order and/or a ‘messy’ revolution? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So in your opinion wanting a spare tyre in your car in case you get a flat is in you thought (mentally) the same as wanting a lethal weapon handy so you can kill or main someone in case you are attacked.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That does not address what I said which was - if people in a society actually think that having a spare tyre in their car is the same as having a gun for home protection then that society is in trouble.[/FONT]

 

If he had these 'just in case' guns under his pillow or on/inside his bedside cabinet, then I would say he had an element of fear.
But he doesn't - he has them stored away in a safe behind his bed.
I think he said something like: 'These make good 'just in case' weapons; and he liked shooting them.
Did he particularly buy these guns 'just in case'? or do they just make good 'just in case' weapons?
Regardless, I don't have any reason he would be lying or just saying so.
So, yes, I accept that he has absolutely no fear of attack.

I'm saying there are various reasons. Fear being one, but not exclusively.

It probably wasn't the best analogy in the world.

 

Nobody said it was the same. But the mentality is comparable.

Maybe he would have fear if he didn't have guns. So he chooses NOT to fear.

You're really arguing semantics here

 

A few years ago a couple of people broke into a house near where I live and murdered 5 people over something drug-related. The victims had guns but had no chance of getting to them in time.

This is what I always think about when I hear that people feel safer owning a gun. Especially if you're actually being a responsible gun owner and keeping your gun in a locked box, there is just no way anyone could get to it in time.

I sometimes think the whole safety bit is just a cop out. People like guns for many reasons. They like them for sport. They like them because they feel powerful using them. They hunt. They like collecting interesting guns the way some people like collecting antiques. There is an element of patriotism there; they daydream of the next great revolution, of following in the footsteps of their forefathers. etc etc. Safety plays a part but I have my doubts that its the main motivating factor for most people to buy a gun.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I think it would add clarity to the debate if people outside the US understood that most Americans are not really a bunch of paranoid gun freaks. They're gun freaks for other reasons.

 

Just for the sake of an example: it takes me less than 5 seconds to retrieve my pistol from its safe once I am at it.

 

Is it keyed or combination?

Seems like it would take more than 5 sec to enter a combination. And what if you're not near your key when you need it?

 

It has a keypad.

 

...

 

OdonII

He says he can get it in 5 seconds, I’d say that was about the same as getting it from a bedside cabinet, so …

“and looking at a Glock as another "just in case" weapon”

Oh I’m not saying this is consciously lying.

I’ve meet people that come out with racist remarks but who genuinely don’t think of themselves as racists but ‘realists’.

I think many pro-gunners don’t see the motivation of fear behind having guns for ‘just in case’ personal protection.

Look at the other remarks on the thread and see how many don’t even realise they are backing up what I say.

But with regard to sig I await answers to my questions to him. Which he seems a bit reluctant to do.

I’ve heard worse, the problem is that there are few comparisons between the extreme of having a gun for protection and something mundane.

 

Letlovin

But that is my point - I’m saying is that if people in a society actually think in those terms then that society is in trouble.

That is just the other side of the same problem – if you had read my posts you would realise that.

So someone is afraid they maybe attacked but getting a gun cannot remove that fear all it can do is give the person the impression that they can use the gun to threaten, intimidate or use violence to deal with the attack.

Which again backs up my theory.

 

80% of this country doesn't own a gun. The problem is the ones that do have them.

 

Could you link to where you got the 80% from? Also, what "problem" do you feel firearm owners cause?