Quote :

"Okay, why do you need quick access to your gun to keep yourself safe, and then not need quick access to that same gun when you're with your daughter? ...So if you keep a gun that quickly accessible for defense when you're alone, then wouldn't you need that same immediate access to that gun when you're with your daughter? Why not just keep it locked up at all times?"

Well, it's not really about "needing" immediate access. I live in what I believe to be a pretty safe neighborhood. It's more that I have guns anyway (because 1, I have just enjoyed shooting since I was a kid, 2, I have lived a couple of places that weren't nearly as safe, and 3, "just in case" scenarios...like, I throw a pistol in the trunk when I go on a road trip, etc. I've found myself stranded in BFE in the middle of the night before, or lost in a shitty area, etc, and felt at least a little less uncomfortable knowing that I had a gun) and, well, why not keep one on the nightstand? Of course it's an unlikely scenario, but the consequences could be severe. I don't think it's paranoid or foolish to keep a gun (that I own, anyway) accessible. The cost and risk are essentially zero.

As far as why I don't keep it bedside during the 50% of the time that I have my daughter, there are a few reasons. None of them are things I'm terribly worried about in and of themselves, but they combine to make me feel like the balance of risk/severity/potential benefit is tilted well toward the side of keeping it in my safe (which is 15' away, still in my bedroom).

-Obviously, there's a risk of my daughter coming into my room, me not waking up, and her handling the gun. I think it's a pretty small risk--she comes in and wakes me up as soon as she gets up every day, and 99% of the time, her stirring wakes me up before she even walks through the door, or at least when she opens the door. Once or twice, though, I have woken up to her standing a foot away by my bed (note: before anyone references my security system comment, note that she doesn't need to break a window or crowbar a door open to gain entry). She's been told not to touch guns, but that alone is not worth the risk. Unlikely as it may be, that danger is still more likely and scary than the prospect of an intruder coming in, being potentially violent, and in a manner that the 20 seconds of difference between having it on the nightstand and having it in the safe would make a difference.

-There is also some risk that I would get up and walk out of the room, to the shower, etc, and forget to lock it back up, and that my daughter would hurt herself or me with it. Again, I think probably very unlikely, but still again more more likely than the intruder scenario.

-The 3rd reason is the fog that we all experience at least sometimes when waking abruptly. Sometimes I've 100% lucid as soon as something wakes me up, but sometimes, I have to shake out the cobwebs. I can't imagine that I would be so out of it that I hear rustling outside my room and mistake my daughter for an intruder. I really think the odds of that are nearly nil, but it's something to think about. However, the think I'm at least a little concerned about is that handgun ammo (relatively slow, heavy bullets) is sort of bad about penetrating walls and remaining dangerous in the next room, or even a couple of rooms over. (An AR-15, oddly enough, is probably safer for home defense in this regard, especially with hollow-point/"ballistic tip" bullets, as they tend to break apart when they hit something, but that's another discussion). At any rate, even if there was an intruder/potential intruder, I would rather have the extra 20 seconds to awaken and clear my head and make sure I didn't shoot in an unsafe direction (i.e., toward my daughter's room).

So again, it's not that I feel any overwhelming "need" for immediate access. It's not like I don't rest easy if I'm off somewhere and unarmed. When it's more sensible to have it locked in a safe 15' away than at arm's length, I do that. When it's more sensible to have it at arm's length, I do that.

Incidentally, I think that many of the people who religiously carry every-single-place they go that they aren't legally barred from carrying it--aren't looking over their shoulder constantly for the next gunfight to break out. It's a mindset of "Shit happens, you can't predict when and where; if I'm going to carry anywhere, I might as well carry most everywhere." I can't really fault the logic; I just wouldn't carry if it was going to inconvenience me unless I thought there was a greater-than-average danger present.

Quote :

"Then put serial numbers where filing it damages the gun, then look for people buying parts to fix that particular kind of damage. "

I don't know what that would be. If it would be damaged by file marks, it would be damaged by having serial #s stamped into it. If it wouldn't be damaged by serial numbers being etched/stamped in, it wouldn't be damaged by filing them off. Maybe there's something I'm not thinking of, but I don't really see how that would be a viable option.

Quote :

"Any real solution will do the following: - Legalize drugs. Most gun crimes involve drug trade. Same shit as prohibition - Make prospective gun owners take some sort of class or do some sort of social activity where you can see whether the person is a weirdo. Prohibit the weirdos from buying guns."

I pretty much agree with this, except with a very, very watchful eye and tough metric when it comes to labeling people "weirdos who can't buy guns". The class/event would also help a little with proficiency.

We have a violence problem--of which guns violence is a large subset--in no small part due to our approach to drug crimes and enforcement. I don't want to just legalize everything, but we need to change our approach. 1920s-30s era gangster problems didn't go away, in my view, due to the National Firearms Act of 1934 restricting machine guns and sawed of shotguns; it went away due to the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition 6 months before that.

Quote :

"seriously though, fuck the backlash"

I think that calling someone in that scenario a "criminal" might be technically correct, but realistically a stretch. At any rate, you can't just ignore the backlash. It would have real effects, not the least of which would be political cost to those who enacted it.

Quote :

" yeah existing guns would have to be grandfathered in for sure. It would be a policy designed to more impact future generations, as the older guns went out of circulation. I'm not a proponent of registration though, i just think it will de-facto happen once our gov. starts using data mining techniques currently rampant in private industry."

...then we're talking WAY down the line, as guns last and remain totally serviceable for a long, long time.

...and what kind of data mining are you talking about? In many cases, there's no data to mine. I have a gun, you have a fistful of $100 bills; we trade. That's that. Now, if you're talking about the government digging through emails, text messages, Facebook messages, private internet forum posts/messages, etc, then you could piece a little more of it together (again, at the cost of backlash and opening a Pandora's box of privacy issues), but there would still be plenty of transfers done strictly through personal interaction--especially once the word got out about federal snooping.

Quote :

"I would go so far as to propose that a dependency between one feeling safe and one's constant access to a firearm is, in itself, a mental illness."

OK, this dimwitted, delusional bullshit (and plenty more like it) is why people like me bristle at the prospect of gun control legislation (for example, registration) that may very well have some potential benefit. I sincerely believe that many people advocating registration, for example, truly are upfront and are not looking to take a mile if given an inch, but there are way too many people who are either woefully ignorant of the issues--yet eager to take a stance, or (as evidenced here) simply do not possess the cognition and good judgment to make correct assessments and decisions. In short, even ignoring the handful of truly paranoid crazies we have, my side does not trust yours, and we shouldn't.

Quote :

"the Pentagon has done it for years in the Middle East "

I believe that's more of a product of Langley than the Pentagon, but yeah...and not just in the Middle East (or even Central Asia).

...but I think if they did that here, they'd (1) hurt their own cause, (2) have the hammer of justice swiftly dropped on them by the Feds, or (3) get themselves fucking shot.

Plus, it would be a lot harder to do than it is to slip some super hot loads into the mix via sketchy arms dealers who sell to terror groups, or leave a "hot" round in a dead enemy's weapon on the battlefield, etc. Manufacturers and retailers have their own interest in not killing and injuring people, especially their customers. Reloaders roll their own, so it would be tough to do there.

Quote :

"so the medical examiner who said they were rifle wounds... should be shot by a rifle so he knows what a rifle wound looks like and doesn't tell a blatant lie on tv. "

Yeah, I haven't watched those conspiracy videos, but I don't get the attention on the coroner. Who gives a shit if the coroner couldn't/didn't correctly identify the source of the wounds? The easy way to ID what he used where would be from the shitload of spent casings on the ground in the school. It's not like that motherfucker was meticulously leaving no evidence behind, to include picking up every piece of brass.

[Edited on January 23, 2013 at 7:42 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on January 23, 2013 at 7:44 PM. Reason : ]

1/23/2013 7:42:10 PM

So would it be safe to say you view your gun (that you keep for personal safety) as a potential threat to the safety and well being of your daughter?

1/23/2013 8:12:59 PM

Would anyone argue otherwise?

1/23/2013 8:19:16 PM

I would hope not, but reading this thread? I dunno, maybe.

But doesn't that logic sort of fly in the face of the "I need a gun to protect me and my family" argument that is repeatedly trotted out during these debates? (Note: I don't recall you specifically making that claim, perhaps you have, but I'm not sure). But it's an interesting point, nonetheless.

1/23/2013 8:22:53 PM

What I'm getting at, basically, is that it's interesting that a tool that people need to "protect their family" is simultaneously such a liability to their safety.

1/23/2013 8:25:16 PM

I mean, there is that conflict that you have to weigh and resolve (for example, the decision process I outlined above about why I keep a 9mm on my person or at arms length at time, and locked away in a safe at others), but I don't see how it's even difficult to see how there is no dichotomy.

It's like saying "I don't see how chemotherapy can cure people of disease, when its entire mechanism is that of human toxicity."

We analyze risk (weighing both likelihood and severity) versus potential benefit all the time. Broadly, things that are a net asset in one circumstance are a net liability in others. Guns are no different. Do I have the analysis nailed? I don't know, but I've certainly given it thought and made my best effort to make the best choices I can.

Should you ever keep a gun on your nightstand (or at all)? I don't know, there are myriad variables that I don't know about your situation, and wouldn't make such a judgment. If you judged it a net benefit, would it actually warrant the purchase of a gun if you don't own one? I don't know. What I'm saying is that a view that guns are by their very nature a net liability is just as irrational and ridiculous as the view that nearly everyone ought to be armed to the teeth all the time.


[Edited on January 23, 2013 at 10:12 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on January 23, 2013 at 10:15 PM. Reason : ]

1/23/2013 9:57:22 PM

In an extreme, simplified, example, when I was college, my grandmother was diagnosed with a rather rare blood disorder. Essentially, the doctors told her "Untreated, this disorder will be fatal. There is a very expensive experimental drug that, if successful, will lead to long-term suppression of the disease. However, there is a 50% chance that the drug will kill you."

She elected to take the drug treatment, and died within a week or two of it. I don't think it's difficult to see that the drug was very much a "liability to her safety" or a "threat to her...well being", but I think we can pretty easily agree that she very reasonably took it to "protect" herself. Now, whether or not the odds it offered were worth the cost, again, that's a personal decision based on priorities and individual means that isn't easily quantified.

About the only difference from our gun debate is that the statistics are much less clear and static on what the external threat is to each individual in each situation, and how much protection and liability a gun represents. I do think that people allow emotion and political biases to affect their judgment of how to optimally handle this, in either direction. I would say that emotion is arguably a legitimate factor in terms of peace of mind, but both sides allow it to generate irrational decision-making.

Introspectively, being as objective as I can, I think that maybe I am guilty of being a little irrational on the dollars and cents leg of the analysis, but part of it is that I just like guns and shooting. The money I have spent on guns is partly for safety and partly for sport. That part isn't irrational. I have probably spent a little more money on a couple of guns that are very specifically for defense (as in, I don't shoot them for sport, other than just occasionally for...proficiency.) I don't, however, feel like I am irrational at all in my usage/employment/whatever you want to call it. I recognize that it is exceedingly unlikely that I will need to use a gun in anger, and yet, various states of readiness are reasonably warranted, in my opinion.


[Edited on January 23, 2013 at 10:47 PM. Reason : ]

1/23/2013 10:27:49 PM

Quote :

"What I'm saying is that a view that guns are by their very nature a net liability is just as irrational and ridiculous as the view that nearly everyone ought to be armed to the teeth all the time."

But by your very behavior, you recognize the liability that they possess. That's why you keep it locked up when in the presence of children. When you're alone, you keep it on your nightstand and risk using it during the "fog" of waking up (side note: I actually find this kind of funny, that you're both aware of the damage you could inflict during this fog, but nevertheless have a sort of "aw fuck it" attitude about it prematurely firing it while in your less lucid state).

And, with the sample size that we have in your scenario (two people, you and your daughter), the liability seems to increase with the number of people you have in your home. If you had another child, or that child had a friend over, then there are more people who could potentially be in harms way. And, not to get personal, but if you had 100% ownership of your kid, you would conceivably always have your gun in your safe, no?

So my question is this. Do you feel less secure when you have your daughter with you? Because, it logically stands to reason that you are in fact more vulnerable to intruders when she's in your presence by virtue of the precautions you take in order to keep her from accessing your gun.

1/23/2013 10:46:14 PM

[quote(side note: I actually find this kind of funny, that you're both aware of the damage you could inflict during this fog, but nevertheless have a sort of "aw fuck it" attitude about it prematurely firing it while in your less lucid state).[/quote]

First, I think I'd be pretty damned awake and lucid by the time anyone got into my house and I had the need to shoot...but even accepting the possibility that I might be a little less lucid than normal, when it's just me in the house, and nobody but me has a key, and nobody has any reason to be coming in...I think that it's incredibly unlikely to happen, but totally reasonable to shoot anyone else in my house in the middle of the night. There wouldn't be anything "premature" or "aw fuck it" about it; that decision would hardly require 100% lucidity. I just hope that I would be "with it" enough to land all the rounds in vital areas.

Quote :

"And, with the sample size that we have in your scenario (two people, you and your daughter), the liability seems to increase with the number of people you have in your home. "

Well, it's kind of "1, or >1". Like I mentioned above, when it's just me, it's a safe bet that anyone else in my locked house in the middle of the night is someone I want to shoot...but yeah, every additional person in your house is someone that you need to account for and make sure you don't hit.

Quote :

"And, not to get personal, but if you had 100% ownership of your kid, you would conceivably always have your gun in your safe, no?"

Yes. Or I'd get one of those little handgun lockboxes made to be kept in a nightstand drawer.

But yes, for a couple of years, my daughter spent 6 weeks with me in the summer (even now, with 50% custody, it's a weird rotation that adds up to 50% per year, but still almost uninterrupted through the summer)...and I kept all the guns unloaded and put away, except for one that I kept hidden on a high shelf in my closet (she was 3-4 years old at the time...no chance of her reaching it, let alone being able to pull the slide back to chamber a round).

Quote :

"So my question is this. Do you feel less secure when you have your daughter with you? "

Well yeah, but pretty marginally. I don't think there's a great likelihood of anything happening at my current residence to begin with, and if it did, I think there's a considerable chance that I'd be able to retrieve a weapon from the safe in time. I'd feel a whole lot more insecure about keeping a gun out on the nightstand. Like I said, it's all about weighing the factors in different circumstances. If I lived in a bad area, that might alter the balance, but I don't.

1/23/2013 11:05:48 PM

why are you guys still contesting? Jesus already won.

1/23/2013 11:08:03 PM

1/23/2013 11:12:19 PM

I just don't understand a world where we just shoot every unexpected visitor

[Edited on January 23, 2013 at 11:42 PM. Reason : Take the trolling to Chit Chat. -theDuke866.]

1/23/2013 11:40:14 PM

I'm not trolling. I was directed to this thread by qntmfred. My comment was serious. you're going to accidentally kill a family member or a friend with your current self defense strategy.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 6:42 AM. Reason : disagreement isn't trolling]

1/24/2013 6:41:35 AM

Quote :

"First, I think I'd be pretty damned awake and lucid by the time anyone got into my house and I had the need to shoot..."

What makes you think that? Have you ever been in a home invasion scenario? Lucidity isn't just rubbing the sleep out of your eyes, it's calm rationality. The exact reason why police and soldiers endure so much training is so that they can do what they do automatically and not have to rely on "lucidity" which comes so rarely in life-or-death situations.


[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 12:06 PM. Reason : .]

1/24/2013 12:03:53 PM

Because when they fantasize about it they always are, it never goes wrong

1/24/2013 12:04:45 PM

Quote :

"Well yeah, but pretty marginally. I don't think there's a great likelihood of anything happening at my current residence to begin with, and if it did, I think there's a considerable chance that I'd be able to retrieve a weapon from the safe in time"

Then why not just always keep it locked up? If it reduces your sense of safety only marginally, and you're still confident that you could get to it in time in the event of an emergency, then why even afford yourself the opportunity to make the mistake of having to act while still in a panic/less lucid? It just seems like an unnecessary risk for such a minimal potential gain.

Now, I don't know your specifics, but I would think that there's always a chance that a member of your family or a close friend could show up unannounced late at night (like if they have an emergency and their phone is dead, and they need you immediately). Why is it even worth it? You're being awful confident in your ability to assess every situation before you act, which seems a bit cavalier.

It just seems to me that if you don't feel significantly less safe when your gun is locked up, and you also admit that there's a possibility to being less than 100% 'all there' immediately after waking up, that keeping a gun by your nightstand at ANY time is an unnecessary risk to take. So, I don't understand your calculus.

1/24/2013 12:39:49 PM

There are varying weights to the consequence of failure in his mind I imagine. Like the cost of failing to prevent his child from killing herself with his gun is much higher than the cost of him dying in a home invasion because he couldn't get to his gun on time.

However, when the kid is not around, that cost comparison is unnecessary.

That's how I feel about it at least. I don't own a gun but if I did and I were in his situation (partial custody of a young child) I'd probably do exactly the same thing.

1/24/2013 12:46:07 PM

And what about when that child is old enough to conceivably get into an argument with her mom and decide to come crash at her dads place late at night unannounced? Or old enough to leave the house without notice and come back late at night? Would you (or he), keep your hypothetical (or his real) gun on the nightstand then? The "anybody who's at my residence who isn't me can reasonably be shot" attitude is cavalier and lacking nuance, in my opinion.

I can't help but think that the likelihood of someone coming to my home unannounced has just as high a probability of being someone I know and care for as it does being an unwanted intruder.

1/24/2013 1:05:13 PM

But someone coming to your home unannounced doesn't mean they have a 100% chance of shooting themselves with my hypothetical gun. You're moving the goalposts but then acting like it's still a toddler that would end up exposed to a gun not locked away. I can't speak for Duke's calculus but if I would judge the likelihood of how unstable my child is and how likely they would be to try to gain access to my gun in my decision matrix, of course.

1/24/2013 1:28:21 PM

I wasn't talking about the child shooting himself/herself.

I was talking about you accidentally mistaking your child for an intruder.

1/24/2013 1:32:14 PM

the list of 150 scary looking guns which includes shotguns has come out. no mags over 10 rounds. you have to register grandfathered guns also

1/24/2013 1:36:28 PM

^^Well, I don't know about Duke but I wouldn't even point the weapon until I've identified the target for that very reason. Even in broad daylight you don't want to shoot something you're not absolutely certain needs to die. I doubt Duke's plan is to fire at any noise in his dark house without first saying something to the effect of "GTFO or I'm going to kill you."

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

1/24/2013 1:39:13 PM

Couldn't he conceivably shout that while he's getting the gun out from his safe?

1/24/2013 1:57:33 PM

I don't understand why he (or hypothetical disco_stu) would need to be Quickdraw McGraw and have it by his night stand if he's going through every other precaution to prevent him from pulling the trigger so quickly.

1/24/2013 1:59:43 PM

I also wouldn't be about to reveal my location to a potential intruder until I at least have a weapon. There's a gulf between getting armed and killing someone that I think you're glossing over here.

1/24/2013 2:05:19 PM

Quote :

"the list of 150 scary looking guns which includes shotguns has come out. no mags over 10 rounds. you have to register grandfathered guns also "

what is that for, NY?

Also, its not really 150 guns. Its all AK types, all AR types, all Thompson types, all MAC types, all UZI types, the LAW 12 and SPAS 12 (related shotguns), and all Saiga 12 types (so more than 150).

1/24/2013 2:26:49 PM

Quote :

"I also wouldn't be about to reveal my location to a potential intruder until I at least have a weapon. "

That sounds like a pretty hollow rationale, to me. He already said his safe is only 15 feet away. He doesn't live in a combat zone. Revealing his location? It's his house late at night. He's in his room. Where else would you possibly expect him to be?

Unless someone broke into his house with the specific goal of killing him within a 10 second time frame, having that quick access seems a trifle unnecessary. Honestly, unless you owe money to the mob, I can't think of a situation where that time frame is enough to warrant that extra layer of peace of mind. I can think of a million reasons why that strategy could backfire drastically, though. And that's why I don't get it. So unless you are a marked man without any family, I can't understand the reasoning.

1/24/2013 2:33:17 PM

You could hear the shit out of me moving 15', stupid creaky old ass house

1/24/2013 2:35:58 PM

JHC is making this thread unbearable.

1/24/2013 2:41:39 PM

I'm sorry for ruining your fun by presenting you with an alternate viewpoint.

1/24/2013 2:48:01 PM

I don't mind alternative viewpoints at all, I welcome them. It just really seems that you're arguing the extreme just to argue.

1/24/2013 2:49:11 PM

Quote :

"what is that for, NY?"

sorry, no that is feinstein's wish list

1/24/2013 2:50:43 PM

For a tough guy with a gun, you sure are sensitive.

1/24/2013 2:51:11 PM

^my point exactly. i don't think i'm a tough guy. what's the point of that? you're just being an anonymous argumentative jerk on the internet because it makes you feel good for some reason.

1/24/2013 2:54:54 PM

Quote :

"It just really seems that you're arguing the extreme just to argue."

Coming up with reasons for why you would reasonably need to kill someone within 15 seconds of waking up is extreme. Coming up with reasons for why that could potentially backfire is not.

I don't trust myself to piss in the toilet bowl without missing within 15 seconds of waking up, let alone hit a moving target. Christ.

1/24/2013 2:55:11 PM

Is that what you're arguing now? I honestly can't keep up, your points keep changing and moving.

1/24/2013 2:56:10 PM

Quote :

"I can think of a million reasons why that strategy could backfire drastically, though."

I'm failing to see why having it in a gun safe would make a huge difference in the "accidentally shooting someone you don't intend to shoot" category. A gun safe's primary purpose, IMO, is to prevent people in your home who are not trained in using the gun from getting the gun. Additionally it's for keeping burglars from getting them easily.

I don't see where the unnecessary risk is being added by having it available to be used, unless of course there are people in the home that are not trained in its use or would be prone to its misuse.

Quote :

"Coming up with reasons for why you would reasonably need to kill someone within 15 seconds of waking up is extreme. Coming up with reasons for why that could potentially backfire is not. I don't trust myself to piss in the toilet bowl without missing within 15 seconds of waking up, let alone hit a moving target. Christ."

I don't see why he should be confident in his ability to open a gun safe within 15 seconds. I'd much rather someone use that 15 seconds trying to become alert and assess the situation than fucking with a gun safe. Unless of course there are kids/unstable people living in the home where that benefit is outweighed by the risk of them getting the gun.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

1/24/2013 3:00:09 PM

Quote :

"Is that what you're arguing now? I honestly can't keep up, your points keep changing and moving."

My arguments are only changing to keep up with the absurdity of your sides:

Let me recap this thread:

Pro gunners: We need them to resist tyranny!
Anti gunners: What are you waiting for?

Pro gunners: But it would change the power dynamic between citizens and the police!
Anti gunners: They have drones, you have a pistol.

Pro gunners: Well, we need guns to keep coyotes out of Chicago
Anti gunners: Seriously?

Pro gunners: Okay, but we use them for sport
Anti gunners: So why do you keep it so accessible when you're not at the range?

Pro gunners: Because we need them to protect our families!
Anti gunners: Then why do you keep it locked up when your kids are with you?

Pro gunners: Well, when I'm by myself, I keep it at arms reach just in case!
Anti gunners: You really need it within 15 seconds of waking up? And you trust yourself to use it that quickly?


Pro gunners: Why are you such a jerk?



[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 3:04 PM. Reason : ]

1/24/2013 3:03:51 PM

The picture you probably have of me in your head is so wrong. i've really hardly argued any of those points. again, your bias is causing you to be completely irrational. i am not a "gun-nut" like you're probably picturing in your head. for whatever reason, because I happen to own a gun, you've concluded I'm crazy and fantasize about killing people. Most of your stereotyping, assumptions and arguments are absurd and it's really not worth arguing with you. If you're trying to change minds or make points, you're failing.

1/24/2013 3:08:31 PM

Quote :

" I'd much rather someone use that 15 seconds trying to become alert and assess the situation than fucking with a gun safe."

So you trust someone who isn't calm enough to open a safe with a gun? If you cannot perform the simple task of opening a safe without drooling on yourself, then you're really in no position to be handling a firearm. TheDuke even cited this rationale at the very top of the page...

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 3:25 PM. Reason : ]

1/24/2013 3:09:03 PM

Quote :

". i am not a "gun-nut" like you're probably picturing in your head"

I don't think you're a gun nut. I think your a whiny little shit who gets his feelings hurt too easily, which, coincidentally, is a character trait that I wouldn't want in a gun owner.

I'm not being a dick to you because you own a gun, I'm being a dick to you because you're annoying and haven't provided anything of substance in like 4 pages. You only chime every so often to attack my posting etiquette. Sack up, man. Either join the conversation or go back to the sidelines. Seriously, man. Behave yourself.




[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 3:28 PM. Reason : ]

1/24/2013 3:09:55 PM

haha, you're really coming across as a bitch. troll away man.

1/24/2013 3:14:14 PM

^^^^^ no that is the part when you came in and ruined the thread...

Quote :

"NeuseRvrRat MOLON LABE 28057 Posts user info edit post a national system similar to the NC CHP process i attend a meaningful, reasonably priced, easily accessible training course. upon completion of a background check, i am issued a firearm permit which allows me to purchase firearms. further training and permitting allows me a similar permit that allows the purchase of items covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934. tough penalties for those who fail to secure their firearms. i think this would be a very good start. what would you add? [Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:00 PM. Reason : permit must be renewed for a reasonable fee every 5 years] [Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:03 PM. Reason : training should include live fire exercises] 12/17/2012 1:59:26 PM paerabol All American 16787 Posts user info edit post Gun control needs to be revised. Given. Problem is, even level-headed gun ownership proponents have a hard time getting any representation, as the loudest pro-gun lobbies are borderline to hysterically fanatical about it. But there is a compromise to be made, and we need to figure out logistically how that is accomplished. But in the meantime, and this is transcending the scope of this thread, the real issue has nothing to do with the weapon used. My uncle (gulf war veteran, ex-cop, gun rights supporter) made a lucid point yesterday on FB: Quote : "I think we should all agreed to NOT mention the name of that louse that killed those children in Conn. He does not deserve to be mentioned by name. His name should be stricken from any use in the future. If the media would not broadcast his name and picture and just say "the person that did this..." perhaps no one else would think this is a great way to die by murdering innocent people. Give them NO notariety." Gun violence in America is a direct result of desensitization and glorification thereof. Since enacting a shift in social paradigm will be even harder than coming to universal agreement on gun laws, one thing we CAN do is mandate that the media not name or discuss the killer beyond gross facts. Lessen the glory, lessen the violence. Of course it won't stop them all, but it can dampen the resolve of the psychos that want to go out in flames and leave their stamp on history. edit: I like how str8foolish blatantly ignores the solutions already proposed by gun supporters in this thread. Keep it up though broseph you're the people's hero [Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM. Reason : asdf] 12/17/2012 1:59:44 PM ScubaSteve All American 5251 Posts user info edit post ^^ This and ^ this are both meaningful and valid additions to the discussion. For my two cents .. maybe add a requirement for gun safe/locks sold with firearms. [Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:09 PM. Reason : maybe for old guns too?] "

This was a small excerpt of the rational discussion 35 or so pages ago before you came in to troll.

1/24/2013 3:41:33 PM

^I have no idea what you're trying to prove there.

But I find it amazing that a topic as controversial as gun control can only be discussed in this thread (and in this country) within the parameters set forth by gun owners. And to step outside of that tiny spectrum of debate is somehow blasphemous. It's a broad and polemical topic, so quit trying to put it in a tiny little box.

Look, you own the guns. If you really feel strong in your convictions, then you should be able to answer any line of questioning that challenges your viewpoint. To simply dismiss it as "unbearable" or "retarded" (or whatever choice word you have in your limited vocabulary) is lazy, and does nothing to elevate the discourse.

If you're only comfortable discussing the topic and nibbling around the edges without first defending the foundation of your beliefs, then you really don't have a leg to stand on, and you're in no position to demand mutual respect from others.

So maybe instead of casting aside criticism that questions the desire to own guns, why don't you actually force yourself to defend your fixed beliefs?

Give it a try. You might actually grow.

1/24/2013 4:11:18 PM

if you were to see past your blatant biases and try to have a rational discussion and not be a dick and stop arguing for the sake of arguing and quit trolling for responses and emotion, i'd have mutual respect for you. however, you're biased, irrational, and a dick about it all (whcih you proudly admit). try to be a little more rational. give it a try. it'll help you on internet discussion boards and in real life!

1/24/2013 4:18:45 PM

Quote :

"if you were to see past your blatant biases"

What biases? If they're as blatant as you claim, then you should have no problem identifying them. If you cannot do this, then you need to stop chirping out this tired line

Quote :

"have a rational discussion and not be a dick and stop arguing for the sake of arguing"

What is irrational about asking a gun owner questions about their reasons for owning a gun? That sounds perfectly within the bounds of reason to me.



Look, If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions.


(That's two Pulp Fiction references in the last two pages directed at Bullet, for anyone keeping score at home.)

1/24/2013 4:40:17 PM

Quote :

"What biases?"

i already told you. biases like "if you own a gun, then you get wood while fantasizing about killing people" and "if you want to be proficient with a gun, it means you want someone to break into your house so you can use it on them". retarded blatant biases such as those.

Quote :

"Look, If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions."

When did i ask a question?

1/24/2013 5:21:05 PM

Quote :

"if you own a gun, then you get wood while fantasizing about killing people"

First of all, I said people who carry all the time have a hero complex. The "it gives them wood" comment was tongue in cheek. People who carry all the time go through thought exercises about how they'd diffuse a situation, conceivably with that gun.

Quote :

"if you want to be proficient with a gun, it means you want someone to break into your house so you can use it on them"

Never said this. Not even close. Don't project your gross misinterpretation onto me. I said being proficient with a gun precludes the desire to never want to use it. People who are proficient with guns, by definition, use their gun. That's how they gain proficiency. And you know this, otherwise you would have used a direct quote from me to prove your point rather than an obvious mischaracterization of my position.

Quote :

"When did i ask a question?"

You didn't. I just thought it was some cold-blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before I popped a cap in his ass.

1/24/2013 6:08:36 PM

Short of being knocked out drunk, I'm sure you'd wake up pretty fast if you thought there was an intruder in the house.

Either way, why's it so unreasonable for Duke to put his gun in the safe when his daughter's around? It could be a samurai sword, pepper spray, taser, kitchen knives, etc. You wouldn't leave any of those things out with kids around (whether or not they're for self-defense).

How do YOU plan to protect yourself if you get robbed?

1/24/2013 6:52:29 PM

have you ever noticed that most really jacked people (non roiders) are really nice?

just because they have muscles doesn't mean they wanna beat someone down right?

i own tons of guns and can't even bring myself to hunt animals...

sooo.... that kinda defeats that argument.

1/24/2013 7:10:34 PM