Firearms are for sporting and hunting

[Jules Galen]

So "everyone" has been reduced to the tiny percentage of the population that is "pro guns for everyone"? Although you're greatly shifted the goalposts, this tells me nothing about why you think you're going to have a gun pulled on you.

Hey...the question is not phrased eloquently, but I think it is a fair question that deserves an answer....or even a straight-forward non answer (I mean, it's a free country, so-to-speak, and you don't have to justify your position - and shouldn't even be expected to do so).

I hope I haven't offended you Ranb....I really don't want to do that. I like your approach. I support your causes. I think you are a good person.

Jules

 

[arthwollipot]

psycopaths (a.k.a. Sociopaths)

Psychopathy and sociopathy are different things.

And I'd be very wary about making armchair mental health diagnoses if I were you.

 

[Ranb]

And I'd be very wary about making armchair mental health diagnoses if I were you.

Interesting position to take considering you claim "when you have a gun, everything looks like a target." Sounds like a strange condition to have, but you go out on a limb and make the diagnoses anyway. Care to explain?

 

[Jules Galen]

Psychopathy and sociopathy are different things.

And I'd be very wary about making armchair mental health diagnoses if I were you.

In other words, I believe you are saying that I am not competent to carry a gun under any conditions. If that is so, then just say it.

Point that I tried to make earlier is this: the people who are most likely to do me harm are real, although relatively rare (thank gawd). So...that's why I rarely carry a gun, but when I do, I've got a pretty good idea of who it is that I need to look out for.

Likewise, I do not manufacture false threats in my head. I do not panic when I see a stranger, or hear a loud "thump" outside my house at night. I don't panic when people are angry and just venting steam, and I know the difference between a run-of-the-mill fist fight and "attempted murder". I also understand the types of robbery, and if a robber were to negotiate with me (i.e., not hurt me if I give him the goodies) then I am willing to negotiate with him and give him what he wants - even if I got the force advantage on him. Because killing makes no sense unless a bad character makes it inevitable.

So...what was your argument?

 

[fuelair]

Actually, I take that back. You are not honestly mistaken. You are deliberately interpreting what I said in such a way as to make me look bad. You are taking what I did say and twisting the meaning such that it fits your strawman of gun control advocates.

You are another one whose ideology cannot allow them to see any interpretation other than the worst possible one - especially when such an interpretation is not intended. You are forced to make anyone who disagrees with you look as bad as possible, in order that you may disagree with them the more strongly.

Hence, I no longer feel that I need to respond.

Makes sense to me!!!

Too much life to live for that!!!

 

[fuelair]

In other words, I believe you are saying that I am not competent to carry a gun under any conditions. If that is so, then just say it.

Point that I tried to make earlier is this: the people who are most likely to do me harm are real, although relatively rare (thank gawd). So...that's why I rarely carry a gun, but when I do, I've got a pretty good idea of who it is that I need to look out for.

Likewise, I do not manufacture false threats in my head. I do not panic when I see a stranger, or hear a loud "thump" outside my house at night. I don't panic when people are angry and just venting steam, and I know the difference between a run-of-the-mill fist fight and "attempted murder". I also understand the types of robbery, and if a robber were to negotiate with me (i.e., not hurt me if I give him the goodies) then I am willing to negotiate with him and give him what he wants - even if I got the force advantage on him. Because killing makes no sense unless a bad character makes it inevitable.

So...what was your argument?

So far I have never needed to pull a weapon on anyone and only once was one aimed at me - by my 10-11 year old brother - a .22 rifle. He accepted though not graciously the truth of my response : "No, I am not going to do that BUT if you shoot make sure I am dead because if I am not I will jam that rifle as far up your ******* as I can make it go." I am generally very calm when I am truly angry. I am also very fast and accurate at that time (I seem to perceive time slowing).

Otherwise I am as my friends perceive me: happy, like people and love kids (fastest way to find out the difference is threatening/harming a child).

Admittedly my brother was a child, but we are less than two years apart in age. Oddly, the last time we had a physical altercation was 7 or so years later. He had a) taken karate and b) did not understand the difference between big class karate and the real thing. In a hallway about 8 feet long he suddenly kicks out at me - I grab his foot and lift slightly ( to hip height) - he has no ability to reach me or stay stable. There is an open door behind him. I push his left leg (the one I am holding) forward (from my perspective) and his head, spine and tailbone hit the thin edge of the door. Never tried an assault again.

Apologies, but no on the robber thing. He will remain to be arrested if armed or he will be unhappy. Don't like criminals - especially ones who want my property to become theirs. And if I let them go they are free to attack others. That is not right.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Firearms are for causing ballistic trauma in living creatures, generally towards the purpose of inflicting lethal injuries very rapidly.

Everything else is context based on the situation.

:9

 

[Jules Galen]

So far I have never needed to pull a weapon on anyone and only once was one aimed at me - by my 10-11 year old brother - a .22 rifle. He accepted though not graciously the truth of my response : "No, I am not going to do that BUT if you shoot make sure I am dead because if I am not I will jam that rifle as far up your ******* as I can make it go." I am generally very calm when I am truly angry. I am also very fast and accurate at that time (I seem to perceive time slowing).

Otherwise I am as my friends perceive me: happy, like people and love kids (fastest way to find out the difference is threatening/harming a child).

Admittedly my brother was a child, but we are less than two years apart in age. Oddly, the last time we had a physical altercation was 7 or so years later. He had a) taken karate and b) did not understand the difference between big class karate and the real thing. In a hallway about 8 feet long he suddenly kicks out at me - I grab his foot and lift slightly ( to hip height) - he has no ability to reach me or stay stable. There is an open door behind him. I push his left leg (the one I am holding) forward (from my perspective) and his head, spine and tailbone hit the thin edge of the door. Never tried an assault again.

Apologies, but no on the robber thing. He will remain to be arrested if armed or he will be unhappy. Don't like criminals - especially ones who want my property to become theirs. And if I let them go they are free to attack others. That is not right.

I appreciate your feelings and I don't think your feelings need any excuse from me.

 

[Ranb]

Firearms are for causing ballistic trauma in living creatures, generally towards the purpose of inflicting lethal injuries very rapidly.

I'd say well over 99% of ammo expended in the USA is for reason other than use on living things. Most of it is used to make holes in paper targets. Where are you at that firearms are generally used for inflicting injury instead of punching holes in paper?

I spend several hours each week teaching children how to make holes in paper between 33 and 300 feet away in paper targets; hopefully one of them might represent the USA in the Olympics in the future.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I'd say well over 99% of ammo expended in the USA is for reason other than use on living things. Most of it is used to make holes in paper targets. Where are you at that firearms are generally used for inflicting injury instead of punching holes in paper?

I spend several hours each week teaching children how to make holes in paper between 33 and 300 feet away in paper targets; hopefully one of them might represent the USA in the Olympics in the future.

What a thing is used for and what a thing is designed to be most efficient for are not the always the same, I'll grant you. I'd suspect that the first designs weren't made with the intention of poking holes in paper.

There are few options for delivering lethal injury at range that can beat the efficiency of a firearm. At the same time, there are few uses for a firearm outside of delivering lethal injuries at range that some other device wouldn't be more suited towards.

The exception might be, in the example of paper targets, the rate at which you can poke holes in them. Even that, really, is dependent on highly controlled circumstances. For instance, having an adequate supply of ammunition on hand, possibly having multiple guns so that heat or powder residue build up don't become factors, etc. If you take away the ready supply aspect (a feature of the infrastructure invested initially for the purpose of delivering lethal injuries), and compare the same investment of resources, time, and energy all they way from extracting metals from the ground to pulling the trigger, there would certainly be more efficient ways of rapidly poking holes in paper.

For the task of poking holes in paper, I'd call a firearm over-engineered (to avoid the obvious pun).

I tend to lean heavily towards efficiency (what task it is most suited towards AND what other options might be more suitable for the same task) when considering what a thing is "for." I recognize not everyone may think in those terms, however.

As far as a demonstration of marksmanship or martial prowess, I'm far more impressed by bowmanship, personally. However, that is an entirely subjective observation, I admit.

In any case, poking holes in paper regardless of which instrument is used to do so doesn't really seem to have any larger purpose or applicability towards a beneficial result of any kind in and of itself. It is a stand in for demonstrating the ability to kill something (since having a ready supply of living things to kill would probably be the most limiting factor in such a demonstration). Whether killing something is beneficial or detrimental, again, goes back to being dependent on the context of a given situation.

I've now put way too much thought into what began as a drive-by humorous comment :9.

 

[fuelair]

I'd say well over 99% of ammo expended in the USA is for reason other than use on living things. Most of it is used to make holes in paper targets. Where are you at that firearms are generally used for inflicting injury instead of punching holes in paper?

I spend several hours each week teaching children how to make holes in paper between 33 and 300 feet away in paper targets; hopefully one of them might represent the USA in the Olympics in the future.

I hope so too!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

What a thing is used for and what a thing is designed to be most efficient for are not the always the same, I'll grant you. I'd suspect that the first designs weren't made with the intention of poking holes in paper.

There are few options for delivering lethal injury at range that can beat the efficiency of a firearm. At the same time, there are few uses for a firearm outside of delivering lethal injuries at range that some other device wouldn't be more suited towards.

The exception might be, in the example of paper targets, the rate at which you can poke holes in them. Even that, really, is dependent on highly controlled circumstances. For instance, having an adequate supply of ammunition on hand, possibly having multiple guns so that heat or powder residue build up don't become factors, etc. If you take away the ready supply aspect (a feature of the infrastructure invested initially for the purpose of delivering lethal injuries), and compare the same investment of resources, time, and energy all they way from extracting metals from the ground to pulling the trigger, there would certainly be more efficient ways of rapidly poking holes in paper.

For the task of poking holes in paper, I'd call a firearm over-engineered (to avoid the obvious pun).

I tend to lean heavily towards efficiency (what task it is most suited towards AND what other options might be more suitable for the same task) when considering what a thing is "for." I recognize not everyone may think in those terms, however.

As far as a demonstration of marksmanship or martial prowess, I'm far more impressed by bowmanship, personally. However, that is an entirely subjective observation, I admit.

In any case, poking holes in paper regardless of which instrument is used to do so doesn't really seem to have any larger purpose or applicability towards a beneficial result of any kind in and of itself. It is a stand in for demonstrating the ability to kill something (since having a ready supply of living things to kill would probably be the most limiting factor in such a demonstration). Whether killing something is beneficial or detrimental, again, goes back to being dependent on the context of a given situation.

I've now put way too much thought into what began as a drive-by humorous comment :9.

Bows- long or cross- are, if properly built, excellent for putting holes in paper, but they are some too visible to preserve the element of a surprise presentation for a naughty person. It tends to be better for them to be unaware of your survivability level!!!!!

 

[cullennz]

Bows- long or cross- are, if properly built, excellent for putting holes in paper, but they are some too visible to preserve the element of a surprise presentation for a naughty person. It tends to be better for them to be unaware of your survivability level!!!!!

Bit hypocritical as some one who thinks guns should have way more controls in the US, but bows and crossbows are bloody awesome

 

[arthwollipot]

Interesting position to take considering you claim "when you have a gun, everything looks like a target." Sounds like a strange condition to have, but you go out on a limb and make the diagnoses anyway. Care to explain?

Since when is "when you have a gun, everything looks like a target" a mental health diagnosis? "Psychopath" and "sociopath" are actual mental health conditions - different ones, as I said. I don't believe that either of us is qualified to make a mental health diagnosis for anyone, in person or over the internet. "When you have a gun, everything looks like a target" is not a mental health condition, and you won't find it in any edition of the DSM, unlike "psychopath" and "sociopath".

In other words, I believe you are saying that I am not competent to carry a gun under any conditions.

Where the everlasting flake do you get the bizarre and irrational idea that I'm saying that?

I will say it again, to make it a bit easier to comprehend: You should be very careful about making armchair mental health diagnoses.

Notice that the following words are not included in that statement: "you", "are", "not", "competent", "to", "carry", "a", "gun", "under", "any", and "circumstances". Why on dog's green earth would I say such a thing?

I've said it before - I have my flaws, but I am not utterly stupid. If what I have said seems utterly stupid to you, then consider whether it is more likely that I have suddenly taken leave of the brain that I have had the privilege of being able to use for the last 46 years, or whether you have simply misinterpreted what I said.

 

[cullennz]

Except a lot are toddlers with people owning guns leaving them lying around loaded.

People who freak out at a noise and fire 8 times at their grandmother

And people that just shouldn't own one because they think killing someone is a valid reaction to an argument

 

[fuelair]

Bit hypocritical as some one who thinks guns should have way more controls in the US, but bows and crossbows are bloody awesome

Certainly agreed!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

Bit hypocritical as some one who thinks guns should have way more controls in the US, but bows and crossbows are bloody awesome

I first became impressed with crossbows when I cut a wasp in half with the hand sized one around 20 years ago!!

 

[fuelair]

Like, but not, this one: https://www.amazon.com/Ace-Martial-...4647259&sr=1-14&keywords=hand+crossbow+pistol

 

[Ranb]

Since when is "when you have a gun, everything looks like a target" a mental health diagnosis? "Psychopath" and "sociopath" are actual mental health conditions - different ones, as I said....

So you were being metaphorical when you claimed that "when you have a gun, everything looks like a target"?

Do you think believing everything is a target just because you have a gun in hand is normal or abnormal? I don't think it is normal and anyone who thinks that way in my opinion is behaving very strange indeed.

 

[Ranb]

What a thing is used for.....

So where did you develop this attitude that guns are for causing ballistic trauma in living creatures, generally (as in most of the time) towards the purpose of inflicting lethal injuries very rapidly? I ask because it is easy to show that guns are almost always used in a nonviolent manner. The post I quoted was just evasion.