guns

Ed, yes there are vending machines but you have to check your piece before you go into places like 7-11. Such a hassle.

I think these might be Nordic's cousins:
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~geoffrey-price/FamilyandFun/Hunting1999/Dav-Jer-Guns.jpg

I have fired a .22 rifle though.

I do own a 6-foot composite bow though; fucker shoots WAY TOO FAR. I also own 2 baseball bats, a shovel, a sledgehammer, a chainsaw, and a set of very sharp knives. I figure, if there's killing that's absolutely gotsta be done, I'll manage.

I only just found out that spud-guns are real, after seeing that newspaper TV ad.

i fired a 20-guage shotgun when i was seven and it knocked me over; a few years later i learned (sorta) how to hit clay pigeons, my uncle herben taught me everything; if i'd actually lived in georgia instead of just visiting for thanksgiving i'd probably be good at it

my relatives in GA actually hunt the birds we eat for Thanksgiving dinner. the last time i went was 2 years ago and they'd shot over 50 dove. the men come back home around eleven AM with their camo gear, bird-dogs, little puppies learning the ropes, excited teenagers talking about how close they'd come to bagging a six-pointer that unexpectedly showed up, the men somewhat exhausted and jocular... the women take the birds into the kitchen and clean them. my mother of course insisted that i see how this is done and one year made me do some myself (aw).. later in the afternoon, after football and a nap, each bird gets wrapped in a slice of bacon and put on the smoker

I didn't realise it was a real firearm until afterwards. If I had done, I would have thought twice about jokingly brandishing it at random passers-by.

As mentioned on the cowboy thread, I grew up in the wild west and guns were very common. Last time I went back I went to the supermarket and saw a grizzled old cowboy with two six-shooters at his side. His moustache may have even been waxed. No shit. I also knew kids I grew up with who met unfortunate ends due to gun accidents (which weren't always accidents).

I have never so much as touched a gun but I wouldn't mind going to a shooting range if I had the opportunity. However, I hate the idea of guns as killing machines...I'm a vegetarian partly because I want to avoid contributing to the amount of death in the world. (Obv. you can only do this to a certain extent, etc, that's a whole different thread I don't want to get into right now.)

Where I get weird is at the idea of having a gun in the house. The statistics scare me. The boyfriend and I are moving to a high-crime city, and he thinks it would be a good idea to have a gun in the house. We're not planning to have kids (no WAY would I have a kid and a gun in the same house) but we still argue about it every time it comes up. No easy answers.

It was fun, and I was pretty good at it -- shot at least a 40 out of 50 for five targets, which qualified me for some kind of junior marksman certification. However, I can't say I'm that interested in picking up a gun again anytime soon.

TRACER'S INDEX
The number of times in their lives that non-military Westerners are faced with a "kill or be killed" decision: 0

I have also fired an 18-gauge (as a kid) and a semiautomatic of some sort (as a kid).

It should come as a surprise to no one that I one day plan to own and become familiar with a .38 revolver. Revolvers are practically jam-proof and retain the smoothest action of any firearm on the market. Plus the ones I've had the privilege to hold have all had an excellent and comfortable heft. Semiautomatics disturb me.

Marines get to learn about the .50 cal. Sometimes I think I missed out.

Also, the concept of having one for home protection is pretty ridiculous. You're more likely to get shot by someone else in your household, yourself, or the theoretical home invader its there to protect you from than you are to live out your Chuck Bronson fantasy. I think most people who feel they need to own one for this purpose are buying into the idea of safety, and frankly they're just fueling their own fears even more. Wake up folks, you are not in that much danger.

I believe that private gun ownership is foundation block of
true democracy. All law-abiding, mentally fit citizens
should own guns. Not for hunting or self-defence (they're
OK too) but to encourage the continuation of civil and
political liberties. A armed people is a free people.

I agree with this to some degree, except way too many people who are not law-abiding own/use guns. To such agree that I wouldn't really want too many people at all to have guns.

(forgive me, I am being a dong)

Jesus. I just disgusted myself.

Getting to the matter at hand, I have shot (!) a .22 and a 303 and some kind of shotgun and some kind of pistol. The pistol was the most fun, it seemed really easy because the target was so much closer. I actually thought it was rather fun, a competition like darts, or tiddlywinks or something.

Meeting people who have guns enexpectedly is always terrifying. Like meeting big dogs when you are by yourself.

If I had the choice I would 100x prefer to know how to tie effective knots than how to shoot a gun

Never have and never plan to own a gun though.

As a sentance that utterly horrifies me. If you have a gun you ought to have a bloody good reason to own one. And besides, if a democracy decides that it ought to control gun ownership then does that make it any less true.

I don't really have a problem with private gun ownership (cos I want my Dad's Purdey one day) but where is the logic there? You might as well say that loafer-ownership is foundation block, or that fudge hairwax-usage is foundation block or anything! Where's the connection?

Needless to say I completely disagree with anyone's "right" to have a gun, part from maybe a few crofters or whatever. I also can't quite understand how teeny can say "I don't think it's an awful thing to have an armed populace", "I hate the idea of guns as killing machines" and "The statistics scare me" and still feel she's being consistent.

Perhaps the NRA should have a clause in its membership stating that each year, every 1000th member will be shot dead as a condition for membership. It might be humourous if that wasn't what was effectively happening already.

I think its fucking awful.

(ok I'm sorry, gareth, this was a perfectly nice thread. I suppose it was only a matter of time before this argument got out of the bottle...)

instigator!

"The idealist in me doesn't want guns used by anyone (including gov't), but that's not being realistic."

Yeah, this is how I feel. If every gun would just *poof* and disapear I think that would be a pretty great thing, but that is not realistic at all. So now that it's established that guns exist and pretty much will always exist I wouldn't want to make it illegal to own, use, or buy a gun because then all the people obeying the law would not have guns. That would leave only the law breakers with guns and that wouldn't be a very good situation.

nairn, dont forget that matt is talking from a uk perspective. he isnt being idealistic. lack of guns isnt an ideal here, it is a reality

From "Bowling for Columbine" tons of people in Canada have guns.

Funniest time I saw a gun: visiting an ex who was in the national guard and whose day job was being a prison guard. I walked into his trailer (yeah) and he was sitting in the middle of the living-room floor in his underwear with pieces of guns scattered all around him. "Oh, hi," he says. "I'm just cleaning my guns."

Everyone I know who owns a gun is terribly strict about how they use them and won't even joke about shooting someone (though rape, bestiality, etc is fine). But then one guy had is collection of 9 guns stolen, and who knows whether the thief shares that attitude. That's a risk of legal gun ownership.

The reasons were stated.

>And besides, if a democracy decides that it ought to control gun >ownership then does that make it any less true.

It is, insomuch that private gun ownership is a basic human
right. Why do you think the right to bear arms comes
2nd in our (U.S) Bill of Rights? Because ALL rights are
predicated upon having the muscle to defend them.
If gun ownership is controlled overmuch (and that's
relative, I know) we return to the tail-wagging-the-dog system
that has has ensnared humanity for most of history.

Also, FWIW, I think that car regulations in the U.S
have gone WAY overboard, but that's a totally different topic.

"Do you mean that you can overthrow the govt if necessary?"

Precisely! It doesn't seem so weird when you remember that
the authors of the Constitution spent years doing precisely
that - overthrowing an unjust government. With foresight
and good judgement did they plug in this safeguard - in
case the process ever had to be repeated again.

"I don't think democracy functions best with some kind of
free-range totalizing fear of death from anyone anywhere"

This is the unifying fear of citizens who live under juntas,
dicatatorships and other unjust government where private
gun ownership is strictly monitored and controlled.

Like I said, almost everyone I know owns a gun, and yet
I feel perfectly safe and secure. I don't tiptoe around in
fear. Well, we all have our hangups.

No, because then we'd have to talk about issues of race, class, crime and how they are related to the unequal distritbution of wealth in America. And no one wants to talk about that.

Further more its naive to think that any significant gunwielding section of the US people could overthrow is incredibly naive. The american government has more and bigger guns than anyone else in the world.

If you want a truly fair system then neither the government nor the people should have guns.

As for Millar and That Girl's posts; Desperation and poverty breed violence, drug use and dealing and in the end gun deaths. It just so happens that the poorest most desparate section of th both US and British society happen to be black. If you want to cut gun deaths you need to spend your tax money on the poorest sections of society, on health on education and training and on housing.

Finally, anyone else think that a gun cabinet with a glass front is about as much use as a chocolate teacup.

Maybe, but that would be impossible. And even if it weren't, power would rest w/the guy w/the biggest crossbow or some other weapon. Removing guns from a society!=removing violence from a society.

x-post

< LONG USENETTISH POLITICAL RANT >

tags.
Oh well.

The US 'democratic system' was established to limit the power of the people, sure sufferage was universal but only if you were a man and not enslaved. (I'm not sure if there was a property qualification for sufferage in the early US or not). The who US political system was formed with a view to keeping the power with the vested intrests of the country, hence institutrions like th electoral college. Much purer democratic forms were dicussed and rejected by the continental congress of 177*.

Let us not forget that the longest running democracies are Iceland and the Isle of Mann and that the democratic tradition is something that is as old as man himself and predates the patriacrhies, oligarchies and monarchies.

This is utter nonsense.

the democratic tradition is something that is as old as man himself and predates the patriacrhies, oligarchies and monarchies

As is this.

I love the part where he's sitting on his lawn and everything that goes past looks like a target.

I'm pretty sure the discussion relating class and wealth distribution would be a fairly short one.

A little political science research would be helpful.
In a full democracy where each individual has an equal voice and
each issue is decided by vote, you see a tyranny of the majority,
where minorities are persecuted and minimized. Also, the
system usually ends up being dominated by stirring orators
who convince the people to willingly hand over to them
total power (Nazi Germany, anyone?).
Representative democracies are the way to go.

>I would say that the US system is far from the freest and fairest democratic
>system around in the world today.

The system has proven itself, your sanction is not nessecary.
I'm not saying it's perfect, but I don't see anything better out
there.
Our's is the only system that comes close to a balance between
personal and public rights. Though I believe that we are becoming
less free and fair every day. Observe Clinton's oppressive gun
legislation and George Bush's amendment-busting "Patriot" act.
Bush is an evil, evil, man, I don't disagree there.

>I can't see any country taking on the US system as a way of
>governing themselves.

A little history research would be helpful. Examine systems of
government before 1776 (monarchial and aristocratic, except for
the Netherlands and a few other nations) and how these systems
were changed by the example of the American Revolution.

>The US 'democratic system' was established to limit the power of
>the people, sure sufferage was universal but only if you were a
>man and not enslaved.

This is revisionist BS. Do some research and compare the govt
stablished in 1789 NOT with the perfect dream govt but with other
systems of govt that ruled major nations of the world at that time.
A limited sufferage is certainly better than no sufferage, which is
what most of the world had, and one of the beauties of the founding
system was that the process was established for further improvements.
You can bet that many of the delegates were anti-slavery, and yet
they knew that issue could not be settled then and there.

>The who US political system was formed with a view to keeping the
> power with the vested intrests of the country, hence
>institutrions like th electoral college.

The electoral college is a vital institution that prevents, like I
said earlier, tyranny of the masses. It prevents New Yorkers and
Californians from ruling the other 48 states with impunity.

>Much purer democratic forms were dicussed and rejected by
>the continental congress of 177*.

Wisely so, for stated reasons.

Matt, Martin, why don't you state your own opinions instead
of simply dismissing mine? Why do you consider it 'nonsense'
that a people cannot remain free without force?
I'm not dogmatic. It doesn't matter how long I've argued
something, if someone presents credible evidence to the contrary,
I have been known to repent and repudiate my erroneous opinions.

Although true, it is much safer to stay out of the fray.

It's my understanding that in the Soviet Union it wasn't terribly difficult to get a gun of some sort -- rifles on the collectives farms and dachas or diverted military/police firearms. But the Soviet leadership imploded for economic reasons, not because an armed population picked up those arms and marched on the government.