Video of man firing 18 rounds from a pistol in 3 seconds

Discuss

314 Responses to “Video of man firing 18 rounds from a pistol in 3 seconds”

  1. Takuan says:

    My personal position: Guns are fun. I know how to use them, I have used them – but not on humans. Guns are scary, I learned to fear and mistrust them too. I don’t currently have any and have no plans to get any. I could live my life quite happily without them. If I find myself oppressed by people with guns in a serious,organized way and can’t vote about it, I’ll lay low, cut a throat and get a gun – if needed. I prefer my neighbour not have guns, mistakes happen and bullets go through walls. I urge my local politicians to mercilessly crush people who use guns for crime.

    In the specific case of America and guns; I think any harm that would be caused by a handgun ban would be outweighed by the good. If a democracy does things by voting, there should be a vote.

    As far as the natural right to have weapons, OK,weapons doesn’t necessarily mean guns.

    Clear enough?

  2. Patrick Dodds says:

    “No, I live in the United States, where it is codified in law that cops don’t have the obligation to protect me at all. We all are “the civil authority”. And my town has a very low crime rate thanks to that.”

    I’m interested in that too JLBraun – the bit about the police not having to protect you – can you elaborate?

  3. Moon says:

    Yeah, right, but those societies aren’t the U.S. We have a problem and it isn’t going to be solved by letting every idiot have a gun.

    Societies in different parts of the world treat things differently. Think about eating puppies, for one.

    If this is your argument: “We don’t know why we aren’t like Switzerland, so let’s do nothing”, then you need to re-think. We have a problem with guns. Switzerland doesn’t. Canada doesn’t. It’s a culture problem. OUR culture.

    We CAN limit the amounts of guns in the U.S. We just don’t want to, because the NRA lobby is so strong and because of propaganda that the Constitution allows every idiot to have a gun.

    To use your argument in another way: If guns are so great, let’s give them to insane people. They have to protect themselves more than the rest of us. They are tormented by demons all over the place.

  4. dainel says:

    He looks to be bullet proof too. Makes me think of the question that appeared in the New Scientist magazine. How fat do you have to be in order to make you bullet proof? (The idea being, if you have a layer of fat thick enough around your body, it will be enough to stop any bullet from hitting any vital organs.)

  5. Takuan says:

    I see you skip over the “well regulated ” part.

    The world is rife with democracies that do not allow every person to go about armed at all times. They function well, no tyranny arises,people are happy and the gun industry survives,albeit smaller.

    As for a gun is a tool; yes it is. So are cars, that is why we have driver’s licences and traffic laws.

    The fact is, you can live a rich, long, comfortable life without ever once firing or owing a gun. They are not neccessary.

  6. jlbraun says:

    @antinous

    “…as a buddhist you should really avoid killing people…

    Yeah. If you’re already fantasizing about defending yourself, you’ve got a big problem. Violence is a failure. Sometimes we fail, but it’s better to do everything humanly possible to avoid it.”

    Exactly. You understand the difference between violence and force. As a Buddhist, I disown all forms of violence in self-defense. Force, as I have said above, is OK in self-defense under the Buddhist worldview, because using guns for self defense is not necessarily violence.

    And I hope I never have to defend myself with any kind of force, lethal or otherwise, because I’ll have to answer for it spiritually.

  7. Jeremy A says:

    #47 made me laugh the most.

  8. Patrick Dodds says:

    Troll or not, Mr Braun does a good line in defensive reasoning on the question of gun control. The rather ridiculous nature of his argument does come through sometimes though (“The last time gun owners “mellowed out”, we got the Assault Weapons Ban. Never again.”) and we’re back with the “mine has to be bigger than yours” argument of Mutually Assured Destruction. Assault rifles, just to live your life? Arguing that a sane, peaceful society ought to tolerate assault rifles as part of the fabric of daily life has to be some sort of joke.

  9. Songe says:

    @jlbraun – I agree with you again, I just find your exact choice of words strange. I think the key to this is that the unpredictability of consequences makes choosing the best course of action difficult – as unenlightened dudes, all we have to go on is faith, intuition and common sense. In this case, it seems to me that it is infinitely preferable to act out of compassion, simply because that sends an unambiguous message not to attackers but to all people who learn about the incident. Any other act will be interpreted by others in a limitless number of ways – the attacker’s mother will curse you, Charlton Heston would compliment you, your mother and loved ones would commend you, etc.

    Forceful self defense is an understandable reaction to an attack in the same way that panic and misery is an understandable reaction to death.

  10. Takuan says:

    At times, when a social problem caused by individual choice becomes too big to ignore, the “pledge” phenomenon emerges.. How about individual “I Renounce The Gun” pledges?

  11. Learethak says:

    #38 A favorite quote of mine is “There are three kind of liars. Liars, damn liars, and statisticians.” Your statistics are not relevant unless you at the very least also factor in the per capita percentage of gun ownership.

    England and Wales have a much higher number and percentage of death by cricket bats then the U.S. There is a relative scarcity of said bats in the U.S.

    Also does your gun death statistics include accidental gun death? Deaths when the gun is used in Self Defense? Death caused by Police Officers? Or just gun related homicides? Do those homicides differentiate between immediate deaths and people who die later from there injuries.

    A one statistical study I’ve looked revealed this sort of error when years ago when two nigh identical neighboring counties reported those deaths differently. One county reported ANY death in a crime when a gun was involved as gun related homicide, even if you choked to death on a lollipop whilst waving your gun around. The other county ONLY reported immediate deaths caused by the gun as gun related homicide, if you survived the initial gunshot and died later it was reported differently.

    Add to that the political implications of various elected Sherrif and other positions who may under or over report actual crimes depending on their political agenda. (Reporting is not universally mandatory nor always done the same.)

    It plays merry hob with getting accurate number, and there is an entire subfield of Criminal Justice merely trying to find out what the “real” numbers are. Hard enough comparing the numbers between city to city, and you want to compare country to country?

  12. Spoon says:

    @Patrick Dodds

    It’s interesting that you include suicides in the deaths by gunfire, get rid of those and deaths in the US would be cut in half.

  13. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    JLB:

    “I said nothing about anyone’s orientation at all. I am saying that takuan’s rhetoric is virtually identical to that used by bigoted fundamentalist ex-gay ministries, and that such language is intolerant and wrong.”

    No. I just can’t see it. I’ve never seen fundie ministries of any kind that write like Takuan. In fact, I challenge you to come up with a single fundie ministry that sounds anything like him.

    Will you do that, please?

  14. jlbraun says:

    “I see you skip over the “well regulated ” part.”

    Not at all. Since you’re so familiar with the scholarship of the 2nd Amendment, I assumed that you already were familiar is USC 10.311, which defines who is in the militia. I’m in it, and likely so are you. So we’re both in a well-regulated militia, or a militia that is codified under law.

    In case you need a refresher:

    http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

    Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

    -STATUTE-
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
    males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
    declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
    and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
    National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are –
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
    and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
    the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
    Naval Militia.

    “The world is rife with democracies that do not allow every person to go about armed at all times.”

    Indeed. But our recognizes that the right to arms does not stem from the government, it is an inherent right of a self-actualized and independent human being that exists independent of government. And I like ours better.

  15. jlbraun says:

    @takuan
    “The police don’t have to protect you? I find that hard to accept. Any policemen wish to comment?”

    @dodds
    “I’m interested in that too JLBraun – the bit about the police not having to protect you – can you elaborate?”

    Really?

    I’m surprised this isn’t common knowledge by now.

    Castle Rock v. Gonzales
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
    “The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.”

    Translation: Police only uphold the law and solve crimes. They have no legal obligation to protect anyone – you’re on your own.

    Which, if you think about it, is the correct POV for the Supreme Court to take. Otherwise, you would be able to sue the government if they ever failed to protect you from anything or anyone.

    So. Yes. Really, the police have no duty to protect you or anyone else. The police carry guns not for *your* protection, but for *theirs*.

    So getting your own is a rational response. :)

  16. jlbraun says:

    @172

    “Uhm, no….for the Tit for Tat strategy to work as you suggest, each player would require a perfect knowledge of who has been nice or nasty. This is clearly not the case with criminals in a real society.”

    I fail to see how this applies. Two good citizens interacting is a series of cooperation. A criminal interacting with a good citizen:

    “Hey, man, got a light?” (cooperation)
    “Sure, here” (cooperation)
    *pulls knife* “Gimme your *$%&$ wallet or I’ll kill you!” (defection)
    *BLAMBLAM* (defection)
    “Hello, 911? A man attacked me with a knife and I defended myself. He’s still alive, and I don’t want him to die.” (cooperation)

    A disarmed citizen has only the following course of action, as they have no option to defect from the social contract:

    “Hey, man, got a light?” (cooperation)
    “Sure, here” (cooperation)
    *pulls knife* “Gimme your *$%&$ wallet or I’ll kill you!” (defection)
    “Here. Please don’t kill me.” (cooperation)
    “I don’t want witnesses.” *stabbity stab* (defection)
    *dies*

    @169:
    “I can report a high level of interest in the “hobby” being discussed, across a wide spectrum of kids where I teach. Lots of kids enjoy revenge fantasies for being outsiders, and many students are enthralled by gangster culture as well.”

    Did you know that target shooting used to be part of gym class? Did you know that target shooting engaged in as an activity reduces blood pressure, increases attention span, and reduces hyperactivity in children? Guns aren’t always teh evul. West Virginia wants to teach gun handling and safety in schools again, which I’m in favor of.

  17. FrankenPengie says:

    I say ban box cutters. Look what they did.

  18. Takuan says:

    How did you find Bowling For Columbine?

  19. Takuan says:

    Looks some people need to get out more. The world is bigger than north Texas or even the entire USA.

    Really, there is no need to be so afraid. I suppose you may have been victimized badly in the past – that does affect people. The bottom line is: the vast, vast majority of humanity does not walk around with a gun all the time. Or even keep one at home. They are not beset by wild animals or wild humans, their governments are not hauling them off to prison or stealing their property. Most of the time they worry about the basic things you do; work, school, family,health. Practically none of their problems cane be solved by shooting at them.

    Just try a simple first step: live a few days without your gun. Tell us how that works out.
    No need to be afraid. You can do it. I believe there is more to you than your gun.

  20. jlbraun says:

    @Teresa

    “I’ve never seen fundie ministries of any kind that write like Takuan. ”

    Oh, that’s easy.

    “Dr. Joseph Nicolosi
    “I do not believe that any man can ever be truly at peace in living out a homosexual orientation.””

    Change to
    “I do not believe that any man can ever be truly at peace carrying or owning a gun.”

    Jane Boyer, Board Member of Exodus Ex-Gay Ministries: “in areas that are most accepting of homosexuality, such as Hollywood and San Francisco and New York, there is the highest percentage of suicide, death from chemical dependency, drug addiction, alcoholism, and HIV amongst the gay community, and I am concerned about that, because I love the homosexual. Obviously, in those areas that they are receiving the greatest acceptance, there is the highest percentage of death and despair amongst the gay community.” – Oct 16, 96 – Family Research Council Web site

    “in areas that are most accepting of guns, such as Hollywood and San Francisco and New York, there is the highest percentage of suicide… Obviously, in those areas that they are receiving the greatest acceptance, there is the highest percentage of death and despair…”

    The rhetoric is the same, and it’s just as intolerant. It’s a conflation of one’s own agenda, moral panic, and ignorance.

    (Now, you say on cue: “But no one in a fundie ministry wrote Takuan’s exact words, so it’s completely different!” Intolerance and bigotry, however, are the same everywhere.)

  21. anthony says:

    One can’t always trust the police to be rational, but it’s worse to turn over a dangerous situation to some random citizen who thinks they can handle it because they have a gun on hand.

    I wouldn’t trust anyone I knew had a concealed weapon to act in my best interest just because they had a gun. I know exactly how I would respond, though; I would be fearful.

    Ever caught a glimspe of some dude’s gun but you saw no badge? Did you feel safe or extremely on guard?

  22. beergood says:

    When someone tries to tell me (or anyone else) that something is not neccessary based on their own opinions of personal conduct I am reminded of my Grandmother. I has many conversations with her when I was younger about how it is wrong to impose your beliefs on others.

    I do believe that we need to live with a system of laws that protect the public good.

    But here is a list of a few things that many people find unnecessary based on their own personal beliefs.

    Guns
    Gay Marriage
    Recreational Drugs
    Premarital Sex
    Sport Utility Vehicles
    Integrated Schools
    Abortion
    A Free Press
    Chemistry Supplies
    Profanity (which I happen to love, and would miss greatly)

    We could all live like the Amish, they seem to be doing alright. But I think I would kind of resent being told to do so, based on the fact that anything else is ‘not neccessary’.

  23. Kickyfast says:

    The fact that the Dalai Lama supports killing people (under the right circumstances, of course! Of course!) does not indicate to me that killing is permissible. It indicates that, somewhere along the road, Buddhism lost its way.

    Guns are not computers or cars and to lump them into the same category is to create something entirely imaginary for the sake of argument. To what purpose were they made? To drive? To calculate numbers?

    I cannot see the essential nonviolent functionality of guns. They exist to cause harm. That, not recreation, is their function. Making the argument that more people use them for recreation than for causing harm does not change their nature. If I call a nuclear bomb a pony and attempt to ride it around, it does not become a pony. It does not become a pony even if I convince everyone else in the world that it is a pony. We may not call it a “nuclear bomb,” but linguistic semantics do not stop something from exploding. Guns were not created as recreation. If recreation was all people wanted from guns, then no-one would own a bullet-firing weapon and laser tag and paintball would be the most popular sports in the United States.

    I think you can feel the power a gun gives over life and death, and that is what you are attracted to, not aesthetic beauty or sport.

  24. jlbraun says:

    After reading this entire thread, I’m glad of one thing:

    That we were able to get 300 million guns into the hands of citizens, including 45 million semiautomatic civilian defense rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47.

    You’re never getting them all. A ban of any kind is, in all practical senses, moot.

    Secondly, Democrats and Republicans are finally getting that gun control causes them to be voted out of office.

    Our guns are safe for the time being.

  25. jlbraun says:

    “One can’t always trust the police to be rational, but it’s worse to turn over a dangerous situation to some random citizen who thinks they can handle it because they have a gun on hand.”

    Well, Gary Kleck’s study concluded that pistol permit holders hit an innocent bystander 2% of the time, while police hit one 11% of the time. So I’d trust J. Random Permitholder over the police for sure.

    “I wouldn’t trust anyone I knew had a concealed weapon to act in my best interest just because they had a gun. I know exactly how I would respond, though; I would be fearful.”

    That must suck to live that way. Something like 2-5% of a given state has people carrying concealed guns every day, and the Texas state permit system found that they were many times more law-abiding than the average citizen:

    http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html

    “# Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public – 127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000.

    # Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public – 386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000.”

    Some states even have public data. Here’s MI. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/CCWAnnualReport_181416_7.pdf

    65 revoked permits revoked / 36754 permits issued = revocation rate of 0.0017.

    “Ever caught a glimspe of some dude’s gun but you saw no badge? Did you feel safe or extremely on guard”

    Every day. I see a lot of people out and about in the major city I live near with cell phones on their belt, wallet in the back pocket, and a REALLY heavy fanny pack. Because I know that law-abiding people with CCW permits vastly outnumber criminals, I know that the guy I’m looking at with a gun is vastly more likely to be a good guy than a criminal. And then I think no more of it and go about my business. BTW, we hide guns extremely well for the most part. You’re never going to see them. Open carry is legal in much of the US, but I personally don’t – too likely to scare people like you and waste some cop’s time.

  26. themagus says:

    i’m glad to live in Australia without the big gun mentality. after the Port Arthur Massacre the Prime Minister brought in tough gun restrictions (and he was a right winger, friend of Dubya Bush) and we haven’t been over-run with crime.

    the peoples militia thing, the argument about having guns so the government doesn’t oppress you… thats a valid argument but it seems rather irrelevant in today’s society. i dont know, but didn’t a man who was not elected steal the presidency in 2000? where were all the gun nuts overthrowing this dilettante president then?

    they didn’t do shit then, they won’t ever… they just like shooting guns and feeling manly, it’s really nothing more than that. you can adequatly defend yourself WITHOUT using a lethal weapon.

  27. Moon says:

    “Hey, man, got a light?” (cooperation)
    “Sure, here” (cooperation)
    *pulls knife* “Gimme your *$%&$ wallet or I’ll kill you!” (defection)
    “Here. Please don’t kill me.” (cooperation)
    “I don’t want witnesses.” *stabbity stab* (defection)
    *dies*

    OK, let’s see how it would go if the victim had a gun!

    “Hey, man, got a light?” (cooperation)
    “Sure, here” (cooperation)
    *pulls knife* “Gimme your *$%&$ wallet or I’ll kill you!” (defection)
    Victim tries to pull gun (defection?)
    *stabbity stab* (defection)
    *dies*

    Do you really think that an attacker is going to let you pull out your gun?

    I think we should ban guns just so fatass idiots like this guy in the video don’t get them.

    If you want to see flashing lights and hear explosions, go to the latest Die Hard movie. Sheesh.

  28. Takuan says:

    your guns were always safe, What we are concerned about is you. And us.

  29. anthony says:

    Well, Gary Kleck’s study concluded that pistol permit holders hit an innocent bystander 2% of the time, while police hit one 11% of the time. So I’d trust J. Random Permitholder over the police for sure.

    Do they shoot the same number of bullets?

    I know that the guy I’m looking at with a gun is vastly more likely to be a good guy than a criminal.

    It’s impossible to know that.

    If I did see you and your gun somewhere I would not ask you if you were a permit holder or not.

    “People like me”

  30. Antinous says:

    J L Braun,

    You’ve made thirty lengthy comments on this thread. You’ve only ever made one other comment on BB, and it’s a pro-gun comment. I call troll.

  31. Patrick Dodds says:

    @ Learethak – well, yes, I do. Can you accept that there are more murders per capita, and more murders by gun, and more guns floating about in the USA generally? The actual death by firearm numbers are, of course, impossible to accurately establish but even if they are +/- 5%, (a very generous concession to you, I would suggest), there does appear to be something of a strong correlation between gun ownership rates, murder rates and death by gunfire. As for rates of death by cricket bat, I’d guess maybe none in Wales, what, a couple a year in England, if that?
    I know, statistics: a drunk supporting a lamppost. That doesn’t make them entirely irrelevant.

  32. Takuan says:

    I was under the impression that the Second Amendment pre-dates USC 10.311.

  33. gandalf23 says:

    Ok, so I worked on my response for along while. I wrote, re-wrote. Deleted. Undid. 5,000 words, then down to 1,000, then back up to a lot more. Peelian Principles. Lessons learned from Boy Scouts (Why don’t you have the new kid gather firewood on Friday?) So I scrapped it all and just wrote this:

    First, you know my answer. If they’re coming to my house, armed and willing to use force to take my firearms, then I’ll use force against them to keep them. Although I’d like to think I’d be smart and not be at my house when they came for me and my guns :)

    A bit less flippant: I believe that the Bill of Rights does not grant us the various rights, they’re ours naturally. The Bill of Rights just enumerates them and codifies them in our law. So if the fine folk of my community decide to take away that right, which is not theirs to take, then I’ll ignore that law. Hopefully that’s all I’d do, but I’ll not be disarmed. A friend of mine in elementary school had at least one grandparent with a tattoo on her arm. Disarmament is the first step to genocide (kinda hard to wipe out an armed populace), so I’ll not permanently disarm willingly.

    Second, I’ll ask you a question in return:

    Looking at the historical record, can you name a time and place that restricting law abiding citizen’s access to hand held weapons (since guns have only been around a few hundred years) has made them safer?

    I mentioned DC and how its handgun ban didn’t stop it from being the murder capital of the US on and off for 30 years. Chicago, New York city, and Detroit were all vying for that title as well, and all have strict gun laws and horrible murder rates (although NYCs went down with strict enforcement of probation rules and supervision of parolees. Also lots and lots of racial profiling. I don’t think their gun laws have changed since the 20s, so it’s unlikely that they are the cause of the recent downturn in murders there.)

    And Moon, #225, a total ban on the importation of cocaine has not stopped it from coming into the country. What makes you think a total ban of weapons coming into the US would work?

    And what do you do with the 300 million, roughly, guns that are here now? Confiscate them? Do you want to volunteer to do that? How do you reimburse the owners of those 300 million guns? Or do you just steal their property? It’s ok to steal their property because guns are icky, right?

    Also, Federal law says that you have to be a resident of the state you buy a handgun in, but you can buy a long gun in any state, provided you purchase it from a FFL if you are not in your state (ie, no private party sales to out of state residents). State laws may be more strict here, but they can’t be less strict. If they’re “importing” them illegally, then bust them on that.

  34. noen says:

    Oh yay! NRA paranoid bullshit propaganda on boingboing.

  35. nemrel says:

    That MUST get him laid all the time.

  36. Takuan says:

    I guess some people just aren’t as strong as me. Pay attention and I’ll teach you how to live without fear to the point of not needing a gun.

  37. jlbraun says:

    “Do they shoot the same number of bullets?”

    Doesn’t matter. Though I would submit that I have never heard of a CCW holder running through 3 full magazines (40+ shots) like I’ve heard of cops doing. Most CCW incidents are over in three shots. Innocents have a lot less likelihood of getting shot if it’s a CCW holder doing the shooting, and that’s what matters.

  38. Crabmeat says:

    I’ve been lurking but fascinated by this thread.
    As a gun owning pinko I have had this debate countless times with friends and acquaintances. One quickly goes, in their eyes, from being an accepted fellow traveler to being a crouching, whimpering, right-wing fascist. It’s pretty interesting.

    Thanks JLBraun and Gandalf for your persistence.

  39. Takuan says:

    I wonder, perhaps in the flurry of other statements about anti-homosexual fundamentalists,non-functioning police forces etc., if my question got lost.

    How many times have you had to face down an armed home invasion?

    Oh, and here then is a statement for you:
    “I, Takuan, am truly at peace living without a gun or carrying a gun.”

    Second statement: “I think it is possible for you,JL Braun, to be truly at peace living without a gun or carrying a gun”

    First Question: “Have you tried living without a gun?”

  40. Crabmeat says:

    I’ve been lurking but fascinated by this thread.
    As a gun owning pinko I have had this debate countless times with friends and acquaintances. One quickly goes, in their eyes, from being an accepted fellow traveler to being a crouching, whimpering, right-wing fascist. It’s pretty interesting.

    Thanks JLBraun and Gandalf for your persistence.

  41. jlbraun says:

    “How many times have you had to face down an armed home invasion?”

    None, thankfully. But again, it only needs to happen once.

    “Have you tried living without a gun?”

    I’ve already answered that. I do, all the time.

  42. jlbraun says:

    “Have you tried living without a gun?”

    I did. For the first 20-some years of my life. And then I decided I didn’t like living like that after what happened to my family and friends.

  43. glugenwog says:

    It’s funny how the commentary went from fifty “ha, that guy is fat as hell”s to actual informed discussion. Decreasing entropy?

  44. jlbraun says:

    “Just try a simple first step: live a few days without your gun. Tell us how that works out.
    No need to be afraid. You can do it. I believe there is more to you than your gun.”

    Look, just because someone lives their life in a manner you consider unacceptable or wrong, that doesn’t mean there is actually something wrong with them! Isn’t it intolerant and bigoted to try and correct them and the “lifestyle” you consider aberrant and wrong?

    What if you had said this instead?

    “Really, there is no need to be homosexual. I suppose you may have been victimized badly in the past – that does affect people. Just try a simple first step: live a few days without having sex with men or fantasizing about it, and try to call on the Holy Spirit to realign you with God’s plan. Tell us how that works out. No need to be a homosexual. You can do it.”

    Why can’t you be tolerant and accepting of those that choose a different lifestyle than you, instead of castigating them for a lifestyle that you consider wrong and abhorrent?

    Namaste.

  45. Takuan says:

    I see. And can I correctly assume that nothing of consequence happened to you in particular in that time?

  46. Kickyfast says:

    @61-

    Some men wrote down some words a few hundred years ago and now their version of reality must NEVER be challenged. It’s the law!

    This conception of a God-given right to bear arms stems from a Christian understanding of the Universe. How does that strike you, as a Buddhist?

    “inherent right of a self-actualized and independent human being”

    Who says? I’d like to see the indisputable document these men were referencing when they laid down all the fundamental points of social reality. What was it called? Who wrote it? Where can I find a copy?

    “And I like ours better.”

    Well, since you are God, after all, I suppose this argument is over now.

  47. beergood says:

    @150 TheMagus

    Come on, I’ve seen Australia’s future, it’s looking pretty bleak there when the oil runs out. There are going to be ambiguosly sexualized crossbow sporting bike freaks, self-stylized Ayatollas of Rockin-Rolla, and appearantly only a handfull of V8s.

    True that there will be no guns in BarterTown, but you guys are going to have to deal with the Thunderdome and that MasterBlaster weirdo. Also the Bust a Deal spin the wheel seams a little harsh.

    Best of luck though.

  48. Antinous says:

    I’ve shot guns. I’ve cleaned guns. I’ve even made my own ammo. I don’t own one because I do not want to shoot somebody, accidentally or on purpose. That scares me far more than any theoretical intruders. And anyone who thinks that they’re going to hold off the US government with a rifle needs to put down their crack pipe. You have a gun. They have tanks and bombs. Game over.

  49. Patrick Dodds says:

    You know Beergood, I’ve decided that, for my own safety, I need to keep anthrax in my house. I’m sure you, as my neighbour, will feel safer just knowing that.

  50. gandalf23 says:

    #201 Takuan

    “In the specific case of America and guns; I think any harm that would be caused by a handgun ban would be outweighed by the good. If a democracy does things by voting, there should be a vote.”

    What good? Washington D.C. has had a handgun ban since the early 1970s. And yet they are constantly vying for the title of murder capital of the US. So ummm…what good did the handgun ban do?

    @#185 semiotix
    Let me think a bit on what to say. I’m sure you’ve noticed I’m not the most eloquent fellow commenting here. I haven’t read any Nietzsche, and all I know of Buddhism is that the the central credo is ‘Every man for himself’ :) My reply may get kinda long, although I’ll try and do my best to trim it down as much as possible. Boiled down to nothing, it’s “No, I don’t give them up” but I’d kinda like to elaborate a bit on that.

  51. jlbraun says:

    @songe

    “Your statistics are not relevant unless you at the very least also factor in the per capita percentage of gun ownership.”

    My point is that one shouldn’t be looking at “gun violence” as independent from any other type of violence. Killed with a cricket bat is just as dead as killed with a gun, so looking at gun violence independently isn’t correct.

    Secondly, in most of the countries on this list:

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

    …guns in civilian hands are ILLEGAL. Do you think that criminals will respond to a nice telephone survey?

    And to put a final coda on this specious line of reasoning, the UN Small Arms Survey (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/index.html) estimates that 50% of the world’s firearms (including all armies) are in the hands of US citizens. According to nationmaster.com (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms), the US accounts for less than 9.3% of the world’s firearm murders.

    Lastly, according to the CDC there were only 789 accidental firearm deaths in 2005, or 0.7% of all unintentional deaths (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html).

    Also, in the age group 0-14 there were only 75 accidental deaths by firearm in the entire US in 2005.

  52. Anonymous says:

    FYI: he shoots that fast because he rigged the trigger with a rubber band.

  53. jlbraun says:

    “cn crrctly ssm tht nthng f cnsqnc hppnd t y n prtclr n tht tm?”

    N ddly sslts hppnd t m n tht tm.

    http://n.wkpd.rg/wk/Bggng_th_qstn

  54. jlbraun says:

    “N ddly sslts hppnd t m n tht tm.”

    …tht s, bcs ‘m stll lv.

  55. jlbraun says:

    “Well, since you are God, after all, I suppose this argument is over now.”

    It is, but not for the reasons you think.

    ;)

    “You know Beergood, I’ve decided that, for my own safety, I need to keep anthrax in my house. I’m sure you, as my neighbour, will feel safer just knowing that.”

    Fail. Arms are protected by the 2nd. Anthrax is an ordnance and can be regulated.

  56. Takuan says:

    “only” 75 children died from accidental gunshot in 2005. “Only”.

  57. jlbraun says:

    “Do you really think that an attacker is going to let you pull out your gun?”

    Ever hear of an OODA loop? Look it up.

    People drawing a gun (or doing a successful takeaway) on a drawn gun and hitting the criminal happens all the time. Action beats reaction almost every time. Criminals expect meek compliance. Fast and violent action beats reaction.

    “But but but you’ll just make him mad!” you say.

    Goes the old joke:

    A Mongol warrior walks into a market. Screaming, he demands all the shopkeepers line up. He begins to behead them one by one. A voice from the end of the line yells, “He is but one man! We are many, and we can take him!” Someone else hisses, “Fool! Do you want to make him *mad*?”

    It’s clear to me that you haven’t thought about this, done any research, or had any training. Run along now.

  58. gandalf23 says:

    The police don’t have to protect you? I find that hard to accept.

    “Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.”

    The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”

    Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)

    Do a quick Google for “Warren vs. District of Columbia” and you’ll find links to the text of the decision. And people talking about its implications.

  59. elNico says:

    …so what about the Dalai Llama from Kenia?

  60. jlbraun says:

    And secondly, are you seriously saying that we should place our trust in the *criminal* who is threatening us with *deadly force* – that hopefully he’s having a good day and decides not to kill us?

    Fuck that. What stupidity.

  61. Takuan says:

    maybe a handgun bag over a wider area (like the whole country) would keep those pesky pistols from traveling a few blocks to get over a minor border

  62. mrsomuch says:

    #64 KICKYFAST – I totally agree with you on the whole inherent nature of the gun, but you lose me on the whole

    “I think you can feel the power a gun gives over life and death, and that is what you are attracted to, not aesthetic beauty or sport.”

    bit tho.

    From the point of view of a recreational gun user I am drawn to the skill and science behind the whole process, not to a macho totemistic power. It is too simplistic to have such black and white divisions.

  63. Takuan says:

    apologies to Sonny James

    They say for every boy and girl,
    There’s just one gun in this old world,
    And I, I kn-ow, I, I, I’ve found mine.
    The heavenly touch of it’s embrace,
    Tells me no one will take it’s place,
    A, A, A, A, ever in my heart.

    Chorus:
    Young love, first gun,
    Filled with true devotion,
    Young love, our gun,
    We shoot with deep emotion.

    Just one kiss from your sweet clips,
    Will tell me that your love is real,
    And I, I, I can fe-el that it’s true.
    We will vow to one another,
    There will never be another,
    Lo-ve for you, or for me.

    Chorus:
    Young love, first gun ,
    Filled with true devotion,
    Young love, our gun,
    We shoot with deep emotion.

  64. jlbraun says:

    “The world is bigger than north Texas or even the entire USA.”

    I know. Visiting 34 countries, living in 3, working in 4, and speaking 3 languages will do that to a person. I still like the USA the best.

  65. jlbraun says:

    “The fact that the Dalai Lama supports killing people (under the right circumstances, of course! Of course!) does not indicate to me that killing is permissible. It indicates that, somewhere along the road, Buddhism lost its way.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

    “Guns are not computers or cars and to lump them into the same category is to create something entirely imaginary for the sake of argument. To what purpose were they made? To drive? To calculate numbers?”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

    “I cannot see the essential nonviolent functionality of guns. They exist to cause harm. That, not recreation, is their function.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

    “I think you can feel the power a gun gives over life and death, and that is what you are attracted to, not aesthetic beauty or sport.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

  66. mokey says:

    look at me, i’m posting a comment.

  67. Takuan says:

    Now, why would you associate the loss of your gun with homosexuality? Do you really feel I am bigoted and intolerant because I live comfortably without a gun and encourage you to try the same?

    I think you make far too big a thing out of this. It really is a very small thing.Just put your gun away for awhile and see how it goes.

  68. JamesMason says:

    I think it would be interesting to see how many people have ever changed their minds about gun control and over what period of time. I used to be a “rabid” defender of the 2nd amendment, but have mellowed. My rationale is that it is not guns on the hand of people that makes a government tremble, it is a coherently organized group of people acting in concert which makes them worry. If you’re in a position where you need a gun to keep you safe from the government, you have already lost. They will always have more and bigger guns, as well as helicopters, jets, – whatever they need.

    My point is that if you have a gun in your house, you are incredibly more likely to get mad or drunk and kill someone in your family, (or have someone in your family kill you in similar fashion) than you are going to protect your family from some intruder.

    I also worry about my kids going to one of their friend’s house and finding a gun. They see people get shot on TV a million times, and most of the time only the bad guys get hurt. They see people get shot and live. That scares me – that they or one of their friends is going to be playing around and shoot them. Ooops!

    Go to the video store and look at the rack of dramas. A huge percentage have someone holding a gun. It’s so prevalent, you don’t even notice it until you really think about it. It’s like a totem or something that people carry around to show that they mean business – at least in the movies.

    No solution. I just know how I will vote if it ever comes to that. For now I vote with my actions by not owning a gun (well, now that I think about it, actually I have a nice antique shotgun – it’s an heirloom thing, so I guess I’m a hypocrite!!! (But no shells, and I’ve been told that if you put regular shells in it, it will explode!)) and keeping one out of my house. There are lots of nerf guns here, though. If worse comes to worse we will MacGuyver ourselves some needle darts or make some nasty nail guns or something.

    I guess what I’m saying is, mellow out.

    Jim

  69. Takuan says:

    I wonder if the successor to the Cheney Presidency (or is it the “Bush Tragedy”?) will have the guts to put the whole gun control question to a real vote?

  70. Moon says:

    So you think that a guy who is robbing you with a knife in your back is going to be soooo stupid that he’s going to let you pull a gun on him?

    OK, since probably nobody here knows what an OODA loop is, that would indicate that not many people are military trained personnel?

    Do I think the robber with a knife would be able to rob a Navy SEAL? Maybe not, but that isn’t going to happen anyway (the robber isn’t going to approach anybody who even LOOKS like military) and I believe that SEALS can pretty much carry weapons at any time.

    And while most of these people in the NRA THINK they are Navy SEALS, they aren’t. They are mostly idiots like the guy in this video. And Dick Cheney.

  71. Takuan says:

    I prefer to see it as establishing a logical sequence of facts.

    So, bad things happened to other people,you then got a gun. Did all those other people get guns too? Did any of them request you to get a gun to defend them?

    In my own experience, I have faced threats, violence, possible sexual assault and other unpleasantries So have my family and friends. None of us carry guns, very few own any. I don’t think any of us go about or daily lives in perpetual fear of more bad things happening. I am pretty sure that the weight of a gun in our pockets would be less of a reassurance than the other way. To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail sort of thing.

  72. Patrick Dodds says:

    “Anthrax is an ordnance and can be regulated.”

    Not the point JLBraun, but then you knew that.

    An interesting sub-point (is that a phrase?): according to some random essay I just read, over 91% of the gun murders in the US are carried out by men.

  73. jlbraun says:

    “only” 75 children died from accidental gunshot in 2005. “Only”.

    Exactly. And because this ranks so low on the cause of death rankings, the justification for banning guns on this basis falls apart – because if your object is to prevent accidental deaths of children, you’d be better off starting by banning poisons, ladders, plastic buckets, swimming pools, automobiles, and climbable trees.

  74. Takuan says:

    if you intend to use “fallacy of argument” answers, please review your own first

  75. Takuan says:

    The more I review this thread, the more apparent it becomes that fear is the motivating factor in gun reliance.

    Having a gun does not banish fear,it reinforces it.

  76. jlbraun says:

    “f y’r n pstn whr y nd gn t kp y sf frm th gvrnmnt, y hv lrdy lst. Thy wll lwys hv mr nd bggr gns, s wll s hlcptrs, jts, – whtvr thy nd.”

    rq. Vtnm. ps.

    “My pnt s tht f y hv gn n yr hs, y r ncrdbly mr lkly t gt md r drnk nd kll smn n yr fmly, (r hv smn n yr fmly kll y n smlr fshn) thn y r gng t prtct yr fmly frm sm ntrdr.”

    Y qt th rptdly nd thrghly dscrdtd Kllrmn stdy. Fl. Th 43-tms nmbr s cmplt fbrctn sd t jstfy $2M CDC grnt, nd ws th nsprtn fr *LW* tht sd th CDC cld nvr fnd nthr stdy nvlvng gns, vr.

    http://hm.cmcst.nt/~dsmjd/tx/dsmjd/rkb/kllrmn.htm

    ” ls wrry bt my kds gng t n f thr frnd’s hs nd fndng gn.”

    nd tht’s why th NR hs th “dd th gl” prgrm. r y wr f ths?

    “G t th vd str nd lk t th rck f drms. hg prcntg hv smn hldng gn. t’s s prvlnt, y dn’t vn ntc t ntl y rlly thnk bt t. t’s lk ttm r smthng tht ppl crry rnd t shw tht thy mn bsnss – t lst n th mvs.”

    ndd. vn thgh lk shtng gns nd hv trnd n th mndst t s thm dfnsvly, dslk ctn mvs, nd cn’t vn wtch hrrr flms t ll.

    ” gss wht ‘m syng s, mllw t.”

    N. Th lst tm gn wnrs “mllwd t”, w gt th sslt Wpns Bn. Nvr gn.

  77. Takuan says:

    five more dead in Los Angeles, I see.

  78. FrankenPengie says:

    “OK, let’s see how it would go if the victim had a gun!”

    …in real life.

    “Hey, man, got a light?” (cooperation)
    “Sure, here” (cooperation)
    *pulls knife* “Gimme your *$%&$ wallet or I’ll kill you!” (defection)
    Victim tries to pull gun (defection?)
    *stab* (defection)
    “Ow, dammit!” *pulls gun* (defection)
    *stab* (defection)
    “Ow, you mother…” *BLAMBLAM* (defection)
    “Hello, 911? A man attacked me with a knife and I defended myself. Please help me.”

  79. Antinous says:

    Tak-kun,

    What if we only use our guns to shoot out CCTV cameras?

  80. jlbraun says:

    “So you think that a guy who is robbing you with a knife in your back is going to be soooo stupid that he’s going to let you pull a gun on him?”

    I don’t even have to think hypothetically. It happens all the time. Even completely untrained and unarmed people manage to overcome armed criminals, and it happens virtually every day. Action beats reaction, every single time. A gun makes it even easier!

    http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

    Victims Fight Back in Home Invasion

    One robbery suspect is on the loose and another is in the hospital after four victims fought back.

    Police say the four victims were barbecuing when two men with guns entered the home. One of the victims said he made a near-fatal mistake by leaving the garage door partially open. The victims, who do not want to be identified for safety reasons, say they ended up fighting for their lives and thought they might die.

    “The look in their eyes, especially when they started beating us in the back of the heads with the guns. It was kind of like someone would torture a little animal and then joking about how they were going to love killing us,” said one victim.

    The men were pinned to the floor with shotguns. “It got ugly when they went back downstairs and decided to tell the women to ***undress their clothes****,” the victim added, “The girls were really crying and you could just tell that they were incredibly upset.”

    The victim told Eyewitness News that one of the suspects who was preparing to sexually assault the women turned his attention away from the guns and let down his guard.

    The two male victims saw their opportunity.

    “I grabbed him, threw him down on the ground, grabbed a weight from the weight set and smashed him in the head.”

    The women also joined in the fight, hitting the suspects with a frying pan.

    “One of the girls completely nude managed to grab a gun and shoot the guy in the chest area and in the leg.”

    “She did what she had to do and I have to be thankful that she was able to do what she did and if she didn’t I might not be able to give you this story right now.”

    The suspect who was shot has serious injuries and is in the hospital. The second suspect is on the run and as for the victims, they have minor injuries.

  81. jlbraun says:

    “Now, why would you associate the loss of your gun with homosexuality?”

    Huh? Someone’s projecting here, and it isn’t me. The point is that wayyyy back there at #154, someone said,

    “If it had been a video of a gay couple getting married, those same people would have been all in support of it.

    “Social liberal” is supposed to mean you’re accepting of all sorts of lifestyles and you don’t judge people just because they don’t live like you do. Instead it seems to be coming to mean “we accept people who live our particular alternative lifestyle and we reject all others”. So kinda like conservative Southern Baptists, but with the narrow mindset situated in a different place.””

    I was merely extending that analogy. Some “social liberals” are merely fundamentalists with a different set of values, instead of being truly accepting of all cultures and peoples. True liberals are accepting of everybody.

    “Do you really feel I am bigoted and intolerant because I live comfortably without a gun and encourage you to try the same?”

    Yes. Because it reads like this:

    “Do you really feel I am bigoted and intolerant because I live comfortably without being a homosexual and encourage you to do the same?”

    Think about your words and how they come across, please. Lots and lots of liberals like me enjoy shooting and happen to carry guns with us, and we don’t much like it when you treat us like the fundies treat gay people – that is, as lepers who have something “wrong” with them and can be changed by enough laws and social conditioning. It’s ignorant, intolerant, and wrong.

  82. Takuan says:

    There are already public safety rules governing all these. What 75 dead children indicates to me is that the rules on guns are 75 times poorer than they should be. If children are dying from the other causes you mention, you can rest assured people are trying their best to do something about it.

    I can live with a handgun ban far easier than a ladder, bucket, pool, car and tree ban.

  83. zikzak says:

    Yeah! What we need is nationwide gun control combined with insanely tight border security to keep guns out! And of course, in order to keep that border secure, we’re going to need a lot of guards. Armed guards…

    It’s ok for them to be armed though. Since they’re government employees, that guarantees they’re good guys!

    Bonus: This could solve our illegal drug problem too – wonder why nobody thought of it before?!?!

  84. jlbraun says:

    “An interesting sub-point (is that a phrase?): according to some random essay I just read, over 91% of the gun murders in the US are carried out by men.”

    Sub-point indeed, and a bit of a tautology. Men are more likely to commit most types of crime – they’re stronger and faster. Because criminals in most cases need to apply force to get what they want, of course men are going to be more able to apply that force.

    That really doesn’t contribute to the discussion anyway.

  85. gandalf23 says:

    #166 elNico

    “#24 jlbraun

    Gun control is fundamentally a bigoted, racist, sexist, ageist, statist idea that is *so* 20th century. Get with the program.

    Wow, you pumped those out like gun guy…not really targeting, but lots of ‘em…”

    Gun control is bigoted and racist, at least in the US. Why? Let’s look at it for a second. In 1792 blacks were excluded from serving in the militia, even though many had taken up arms to defeat the Brits. Just about every gun control law since then has been all about keeping guns out of the hands of blacks.

    Prior to the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act, firearms could be purchased through the mail with no license required. This guy has a scanned-in mail order catalog from the 60s full of all kinds of neat stuff. All available through the mail. What else was going on around 1968? Hmmm…Watts riots, MLK’s assassination, Malcom X saying “By any means neccessary” Suddenly there were lots of angry blacks and a lot of them had guns. Local gun stores might refuse to sell guns to blacks (or queers, or spicks, or wops, or jews, or chinks, or whatever racial or bigoted term you can thing of) but now with mail order houses selling to anyone, and not checking to see if they were good God-Fearin’ white folk first! Well! That’s just down right unacceptable! So a law was passed, and now you can’t buy guns through the mail, you have to go through a Federal Firearms License holder. Whew! Now if a black man wanted to buy a gun he was forced to go down to Earl’s Shootin’ Shack and buy from him. And Earl, being a good white man, would refuse to sell to his nigger ass.

    So that’s why gun control is racist and bigoted.

    It’s sexist because, well I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but on average, the women folk are less strong than the men folk. They also tend to be shorter than men. And generally weigh a lot less. So it’s easy for a man to, on average, overpower a woman. Even if a woman has a club or a knife, it’s usually not too hard to take it away, or stay out of her reach and yet still be within your reach. And if she does manage to stab or hit the attacker? Due to the lack of body strength it’s probably not a serious wound. But, what if the woman has a gun? That kinda puts her on the same level, power wise, as a man. Now, she’s just as likely to come out ahead as the attacker, maybe more so if he has a knife or was unarmed. Prior to the invention of handguns and their widespread use, what could a woman do to prevent being raped? It seems to me that if you’d rather see a woman raped in an alley, then strangled to death with her own panty hose than a live woman explaining to the police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound, that’s pretty sexist. But maybe it’s just me.

    Similarly, firearms in the hands of the elderly and the handicapped will keep them from being at the mercy of the strong. Aren’t we all for empowering people?

    So, yeah, elNico, I think jlbraun did hit the target with his earlier shot. Gun control is sexist, racist, bigoted, and ageist.

    semi-related:
    “Reminds me of a great quote I once read on talk.politics.guns. There was this liberal weenie whining (triple redundancy alert) about how innocent men would be mistaken for rapists and shot if women were allowed to carry concealed handguns. To which someone replied to the effect that if he didn’t want to be mistaken for a rapist, he should put his knife down and pull his pants up.” – Captain Holly

  86. Takuan says:

    have you tried telling that to their families?

  87. gandalf23 says:

    @#203 Yes! If it doesn’t work, try it again, but this time bigger! :)

    An import ban hasn’t worked with illegal undocumented immigrants, cocaine, pot, heroin, lead based paint, and probably a lot of other things. Why would it work with handguns?

  88. Takuan says:

    “Police have evacuated a school in Portsmouth, Ohio after a teacher was critically wounded during an apparent domestic incident.

    The shooting happened shortly after 9 a.m. at Notre Dame Elementary School.

    Police told the Portsmouth Daily Times that Michael Layne came to the school, shot and stabbed his wife, Christy Layne, in a classroom at the school, then left the campus.”

  89. Songe says:

    If a buddhist owns a gun, I would expect that he contemplates the good that can come out of his owning it every time he looks at it.

    However, since a gun is an inherently dangerous and scary thing (more dangerous than, say, a grapefruit), I personally doubt that most guns are kept around out of any impulse other than a sort of obsessive fear. There are many exceptions, I’m sure. I can see how shooting would be fun, for instance, and I do know that a lot of gun owners are obsessive about safety precautions.

  90. supaswag says:

    Headline should read:

    Video of a very fat man, wanking off in 3 seconds

  91. jlbraun says:

    “if you intend to use “fallacy of argument” answers, please review your own first”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

    “If children are dying from the other causes you mention, you can rest assured people are trying their best to do something about it.”

    Even though I don’t belong to the NRA, they indeed are trying to do something about it:

    “What is The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program?”
    http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/

  92. wangleberry says:

    umm what is the padded suit for? wouldn’t a kevlar vest be better?

  93. gandalf23 says:

    I think this guy said it a bit better than me:

    Why the gun is civilization

    “Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or compelling me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat – it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger – even an armed one – can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would “only” result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip, at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it weren’t both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I’m looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

    Oh, and Mark? The guy in the video does not have a quick trigger finger. Technically his trigger finger is not moving at all. He’s using a technique called bump firing.

    You typically fire a gun by moving your trigger finger backwards, but you can also keep your trigger finger immobile and move the gun forwards. Same result.

    If you do it just right the recoil will move the gun back a bit, resetting the trigger, and your continued forward motion with the other hand will move the firearm forward and the trigger will be manipulated by the immobile trigger finger, firing the gun again. This repeats till the gun is empty. This can all happen very fast.

    It’s a cheap, legal (in the US, no idea on other locales) way of imitating full auto fire. I have never seen anyone do it with a handgun before, I’ve only seen it done with rifles. As other people have said, it’s not very accurate. But looks like fun.

  94. Takuan says:

    “A male was shot and injured Wednesday night in San Jose, the third reported shooting on the city’s East Side in the past seven days.”

  95. noen says:

    I don’t think that Takuan’s empathy is mendacious, i.e. a lie, I think he is genuine.

    As far as police in 1838, well yeah, that’s part of my point. Population has grown tremendously since then and the force of shear numbers will bring it’s own demands aside from any political issues. Laws were enforced by the constable or sheriff and there were a lot of abuses back then. The sheriff was analogous to a strongman and they often bullied those they didn’t like. That goes on in small town America even today. As the population density grew it became possible to hire law enforcement full time. Today we have a situation where some are better policed than others for reasons I’ve already outlined. However the needs of the poor and disenfranchised don’t just go away so it makes sense to arm oneself in that situation. It is not a sign of better things to come that is for sure. Quite the opposite.

  96. Takuan says:

    “A West Valley City man fired a rifle at his bedroom ceiling and then stole a dairy truck late Wednesday.
    The man, 29, has a history of mental illness and became agitated about 10 p.m., when he threatened his family with a rifle at his home,”

  97. Takuan says:

    I think that some of my comments and those of others have become conflated in your mind. Understandable, it is a long thread. I can only be responsible for my own remarks of course.

    Let us try anew: dispensing with all mutually agreed irrelevancies: Proposed: You,the person with the extraneous (to wit: the gun) are invited by me,the person with nothing but the natural, to try living a few days without the extraneous.

    No value judgments are presumed,no perjoratives are intended. Nothing to do with anything else but the gun. Gun. No gun.

    I contend the absence of the gun will not be negative.

  98. Takuan says:

    “Carl Lackl Jr. saw a random man shot in the street — and tried to help, waiting with the victim until an ambulance arrived.

    For this good Samaritan act, killers put a bounty of $2,500 on the Rosedale father’s head and executed him in front of his 2-year-old daughter,”

  99. Takuan says:

    CCTV cameras are to be destroyed with lasers ( a few hundred bucks for a good pen sized 100mw plus) or disabled with paint balls. Or bagged. Or spoofed. No excuse for guns there.

  100. Songe says:

    And speaking of the Dalai Lama – I think most people would agree that there are few peoples in the world today more deserving of the right to own guns than the Tibetans – and few people in the world who have more powerfully demonstrated the message of harmlessness than they. They captured the hearts of entire civilized world. What gun can do that?

  101. angusm says:

    A long time ago, I saw a British army firearms instructor demonstrate rapid-fire using an unmodified SLR (a semi-automatic rifle). I don’t know if he used bump-fire; my recollection is that he was moving his trigger finger quickly, rather than pulling the weapon (as in the Wikipedia description of bumpfire). He certainly emptied the magazine with impressive speed.

    His shots were also on target, which is probably not the case in this video.

  102. Takuan says:

    “But the fun turned into a series of fights, ending when Josh Wohlman, 19, of Garwin, was shot in the head and killed.”

  103. jlbraun says:

    Still intolerant. Still bigoted. Still not Liberal.

    “Let us try anew: dispensing with all mutually agreed irrelevancies: Proposed: You,the person with the extraneous (to wit: your homosexuality) are invited by me,the person with nothing but the natural, to try living a few days without the extraneous.

    No value judgments are presumed, no perjoratives are intended. Nothing to do with anything else but your homosexuality. Gay. Not gay.

    I contend the absence of your homosexuality will not be negative.”

  104. jlbraun says:

    s tht ll y hv lft nw? Cpy-pstng? N rgmnts t ll?

    http://n.wkpd.rg/wk/ppl_t_fr

    “hv y trd tllng tht t thr fmls?”

    slly, rtnl hmns dn’t blm crs whn ppl d n t ccdnts, r knvs whn ppl gt stbbd. Yt w fl cmfrtbl blmng gns whn ppl gt sht. Hw nmstc nd prmtv.

  105. bardfinn says:

    I could make the argument that semi-automatic firearms / automatic firearms in the hands of citizens are not now tools that – nor could they now potentially be – used to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, nor promote the general welfare. They don’t suppress crime, we don’t shoot people in the streets after trials, widespread gun ownership doesn’t stop riots.

    It’s the fact that firearms secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity – that clinches them, forevermore, in the realm of “No, you don’t get to take away my right to bear arms and you don’t get to vote on it either.” If the US Government collapses or is hijacked by a fascist military coup or just abandons us (Katrina Aftermath, anyone?) we will need them.

    Arms are the first tool for securing one’s self, property, family, health and life. Allowing a government to take them away without specifically, in each and every single case, showing due and reasonable cause to do so – is unConstitutional.

  106. jlbraun says:

    “Hvng gn ds nt bnsh fr,t rnfrcs t.”

    n thr wrds, clld y t n bggng th qstn nd y ddgd gn.

    wnng gn dsn’t rnfrc fr ny mr thn wnng frst d kt rnfrcs fr. Myb t rnfrcs fr n Y, bt cn’t b hld rspnsbl fr tht f crs. Y’r prjctng gn.

    n hps t nvr s thr th gn r th frst d kt. Bt sm ppl wll prjct thr wn frs nd nrss nt gns n rdr t try nd tk thm wy. Tht’s nccptbl.

    Th mr ** rd ths thrd, t sms tht mr lbrls wn, sht nd crry gns thn y rlz. Ths s gd thng.

    ” dn’t thnk ny f s g bt r dly lvs n prptl fr f mr bd thngs hppnng.”

    nd nthr d , f crs. Y’r ssgnng yr frs t m nd ppl lk m – “wll, th nly rsn ** wld crry gn s f flt dthly frd f smthng bd hppnng. Ths ppl mst b flng th sm wy wld.” t’s ntllctlly cnctd, cndscndng, nd wrng.

  107. beergood says:

    I live surrounded by one of the worst neighborhoods in terms of crime in the city of Detroit proper, which I think means that I live in the center of one of the worst areas of the country, if not the civilized world. I, as well as many people I have known, have had plenty of first hand experience with misused firearms, hand guns especially. When a person points a gun at you with questionable intentions it is truly terrifying, and far removed from a theoretical discussion. Do I wish that I had my own gun in those situations? To be honest I don’t really know. I survived them without one, and maybe it would have turned out differently if I was armed and tried to return a show of force. I can assure you that I do wish that the other person didn’t have a gun. There is no doubt about that.

    Another thing I don’t doubt is that the other person had no worries about the legality of his weapon, he would have pointed the gun at me regardless. I would venture to guess that a large portion of violent gun crime is not carried out with any fear of the legitimate status of the gun in question.

    And as was stated earlier, making a gun illegal will definitely create a black market (which already exists for assault weapons and illegal ordinances), and there are plenty of guns in this world to supply that market. And someone who plans to use any weapon for nefarious purposes has already made the moral hurtle that would make the legality of the weapon pointless. I think a handgun ban would have a very small effect on the criminal populace.

    Michigan recently adopted a Castle Doctrine.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

    Since then, there is evidence to support that violent crime has declined. Once again, supporters of the doctrine are using this as a causation. I am not yet convinced that that is the case. A great many things have changed in this state in the past few years. But that data is there.

    So making them illegal really mainly effects people that obey the law. True, this could cut down on accidental deaths, but an argument could also be made for more education on the topic. Also, this could cut down on crimes of passion, but I am not sufficiently convinced of this.

    Also, as far as we’re a democracy so we should just vote on it, that is where the ‘is it a right?’ thing comes into play. You aren’t supposed to be able to have a simple majority vote away an individual’s rights. Granted, we do that everyday with the gay community, and we sure keep trying to do it with women. And it looks like as a country we aren’t too hot on privacy. And when we say human rights, we really just mean American rights. Ask illegal immigrants and people in Guantanamo, but that is a rant for a whole different day.

    If it might be a right, it should be treated with prudence.

  108. jlbraun says:

    “Th mr rvw ths thrd, th mr pprnt t bcms tht fr s th mtvtng fctr n gn rlnc.

    Hvng gn ds nt bnsh fr,t rnfrcs t.”

    http://n.wkpd.rg/wk/Prf_by_ssrtn
    http://n.wkpd.rg/wk/ppl_t_rdcl

  109. beergood says:

    @Patrick Dodds

    Howdy Neighbor!

    I don’t believe that I ever mentioned needing a gun for my own safety. I do have one, and I suppose I would use it if I had to. I would rather rely upon my dogs barking to ward off trespassers, and calling 911. I am not even sure if I have any ammunition in the house. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I don’t know where it would be, it’s just I don’t remember if I have any left. I haven’t shot the thing in over three years.

    I do find your anthrax argument to be a little silly. I realize that you were probably playing hyperbole for comic effect, but to equate guns to anthrax is stretching it a little bit.

    As I said before, we do need to live in a nation of laws. Some things are given up to protect the general safety of the public. And it does suck for the people that have to give those things up. I just think that banning something is a very serious matter.

    I also wouldn’t be thrilled about my neighbor having a grenade. I did make my share of dry ice bombs when I was a kid (and adult), and they sure were fun. Fireworks are also pretty great. I just can’t see any practical purpose or need to own a grenade or anthrax that outweighs the danger of an accident happening. If you could convince me that you were in fact safe/qualified enough to handle a grenade I probably wouldn’t have a problem with it (but I doubt that will ever happen). But the margin of error for a grenade is pretty small, and the margin of error with anthrax is so small that it practically doesn’t exist. I realize that I am standing on a slippery slope, but I can see a case being made for gun ownership. And as long as I can see a practical case being made for the legality of something I am not to thrilled about the idea of banning it.

    Kickyfast has a strong point with this:

    “I think you can feel the power a gun gives over life and death, and that is what you are attracted to, not aesthetic beauty or sport.”

    And I suspect that he is correct in a lot of cases.

    I wonder if Mark knew what he was starting with his simple post.

  110. Takuan says:

    and on and on and on and on….
    who wants to live his way? Accidents, love quarrels, attacks, the mentally ill, organized crime… I could set up a shootings ticker and report an incident a minute (at least) around the clock. This isn’t anyone’s choice anymore. A machine has been built that eats people.

  111. Takuan says:

    I’m sorry? Are you some how under the impression that my sexual orientation is homosexual? I find that strange indeed. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

  112. zippedup says:

    Some of the above comments are just freaking brilliant – damn I love this site for the talenmt of it’s readers. A fat guy with a gun – didn’t know it could make me laugh so much. Cheers!

  113. Takuan says:

    drunk driving was socially acceptable once

  114. jlbraun says:

    “drnk drvng ws sclly ccptbl nc”

    Ddgng gn.

    Cpy-pst. Cpy-pst. Cpy-pst. Cpy-pst. Cpy-pst.

    Wh’s th trll hr? ll

  115. Rajio says:

    Something tells me hes American.

  116. Jacques says:

    That was fscking pathetic. Goddamn, sometimes I hope the end is nigh.

  117. Suburbancowboy says:

    You really only need to fire one bullet, properly.

    This is the reason someone like 50 Cent was shot 6 times but is still alive. If a guy is going to hold a gun sideways, he probably isn’t going to hit the target.
    Similarly, this guy fired 18 rounds, but is probably lucky if one hit the target.

  118. jlbraun says:

    “few people in the world who have more powerfully demonstrated the message of harmlessness than they.”

    When you are facing down the entire Chinese military, have had your guns stripped from you by force, and are living under a repressive police state, you have no *option* but to be harmless.

    The “harmlessness” of the Tibetans can hardly be called moral or noble. It’s more survival than anything.

  119. jlbraun says:

    Rate of gun defenses according to the US Department of Justice, 2004 study, at 1.5 million a year: 2.85 defenses per minute

    Rate of murder with a firearm: 1 per hour

  120. Jake0748 says:

    Guess he doesn’t have to worry much about the recoil anyway.

  121. Takuan says:

    of course he did

  122. Patrick Dodds says:

    @83, JLBraun: ergo, you would have thought, they would have less need of a gun and it should be women who use them. Unless, of course, there is some other factor (insecurity in one’s masculinity, say) at play in the mind of the gun lover?

  123. semiotix says:

    Gandalf23 quoted someone who said: Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

    Okay, I’ll buy that for now. Hypothetically, let’s say the jurisdiction you live in banned personal guns, by a majority vote of duly elected legislators yadda yadda yadda. If you don’t yield to their reasoning about gun control, in short order they’re going to come, armed with guns, to take away your gun by force.

    Just as a baseline for understanding your stance on guns and people, what do you do in that situation? I’m making some common-sense assumptions in this hypothetical, for instance that “if you don’t like it, leave” isn’t any more viable an option for you than for most people. Basically, the choice you face in this hypothetical is between keeping your guns and keeping a tenable place in society.

    The reason I ask is that certain abstract or idealized projections about things like force, power, politics, etc. play better together than others. There’s the Nietzschean übermensch, and then there’s a guy with a mortgage. You like guns, and you’ve got a philosophy going where they’re not only unproblematic but practically a moral imperative–fair enough. I’m just curious which you’d throw overboard first, if we changed the parameters slightly–the guns or the rationale for having guns.

    No wrong answers, no gotcha! response from me. I can have an internet-style “debate” about guns on any website. Really just curious.

  124. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    Takuan, would you please not make remarks about people having sexual relations with their guns? That seriously grosses me out. Also, unless there’s a sexual kink out there I’ve completely missed, people aren’t doing that.

    (They can’t be. If they were, EMTs would know about it.)

    Patrick Dodds, I’m sorry, but I thought Klokwerk’s argument was wrong both times. I know what kind of responses BB’s readers give what kind of entries, and they just don’t divide up the way he imagines they do. I know a lot of people preach that politics are a polarized system, but that’s not the reality of it. This isn’t a left-vs.-right thing, as witness that photo I linked to. Boing Boing’s readers are all over the map on this issue. Americans in general have more diverse opinions about guns than has previously been assumed.

    Thanks for getting the point about our being a cooperative society that uses distributed reason and distributed force. I’m here as both a commenter and the moderator, because I don’t think I’d be the best moderator I could be if I weren’t part of the everyday life of the website. You wouldn’t know me, I wouldn’t know you nearly as well, and I wouldn’t have the same feel for the comment threads.

    I try very hard to never use my powers as moderator to help me win arguments. If I remove or disemvowel a remark, I promise it’s one I’d remove or disemvowel in exactly the same way if I weren’t participating in the conversation.

  125. jlbraun says:

    “Hwvr th nds f th pr nd dsnfrnchsd dn’t jst g wy s t mks sns t rm nslf n tht sttn. t s nt sgn f bttr thngs t cm tht s fr sr. Qt th ppst.”

    Rght.

    Jhnny Rch wll lwys b bl t py n-nck strngmn thg nmd Tts $2500 mnth t stnd by hs dr f plc prtctn cntns t g dwn th tbs (sd thg dsn’t nd gn nywy, bcs h’s bg, strng, nd ntmdtng).

    Hwvr, th lw-bdng pr lk 65 yr ld Fl Smstrss wth th bd hp hv n sch ptn, nd s sch $250 n-tm nvstmnt n (lglly bght, f crs) S&W .38 rvlvr r pmp shtgn s mch mr ffrdbl fr hr, nd llws hr t xrt th sm mnt f frc s Tts fr mch lss cst. mnmlly mntnd frrm wll lst dcds.

    Gvn tht w’v stblshd tht th plc hv n dty t prtct y ndvdlly, gvn tht th pr nd dsnfrnchsd lv n cmmnts tht cn’t ffrd gd plc, nd gvn tht t’s prbbly gng t gt wrs – d y s why sm lbrls lk th d f prtctng gn wnrshp, bcs t llws th pr nd dsnfrnchsd t prvd prtctn fr thmslvs nd thr fmls?

  126. V says:

    My guess is that’s the only fast thing about him.

  127. endotoxin says:

    Looks like he’s holding the grip in his left hand, and bouncing the trigger using his right hand.

    Yeah, I suppose that might work for unloading a bunch of lead, but I think I’d prefer to just work on my marksmanship.

    Now do this with a revolver, like this other guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3fgduPdH_Y), and I’ll be impressed!

  128. anthony says:

    Hi. Responding to these comments from the moderator and jlbraun:

    “Anthony (169), I’d rather pay attention to the correlation between revenge fantasies and our consistent failure to protect students from bullying.”

    I don’t understand what you mean by that. Rather than what? There are many programs and seminars in place that address bullying, esp. post Columbine. That sort of training is pretty standard, as are metal detectors and armed security. There’s more to it than that, even. We need to address the causes that create bullies in the first place, before high school if at all possible. Bullies and thier victims need help.

    “Did you know that target shooting used to be part of gym class? Did you know that target shooting engaged in as an activity reduces blood pressure, increases attention span, and reduces hyperactivity in children? Guns aren’t always teh evul. West Virginia wants to teach gun handling and safety in schools again, which I’m in favor of.”

    Excuse me, but I find your arguments well-worded but insubstantial, here and elsewhere once I googled your name. All gym activities have the effects you describe, except for reducing “hyperactivity”. I never saw a report claiming that.
    I like the inner city kids I teach, but I would not suggest a program that increased thier interest in guns. It’s irresponsible.

    I learned to shoot from my step dad, who was in the Green Berets, but I did not retain a fascination for guns. Learned it, left it alone.

  129. jlbraun says:

    “I’m sorry? Are you some how under the impression that my sexual orientation is homosexual? I find that strange indeed. How did you arrive at this conclusion?”

    Now you’re just dodging. You know perfectly well what I’m getting at. I am in no way implying anything about you.

    I’ll put it more explicitly.

    You saying “It would be a good thing if you just put the gun away for a few days” is the exact same intolerant, condescending, and bigoted rhetoric used by Christian “ex-gay” ministries such as Exodus International and others: “It would be a good thing if you tried just not to be gay for a few days.”

    The message is passive-agressive doubletalk:
    “I care about you, so I’m going to help you with this terrible and affliction you’re suffering from.” It’s intolerant, bigoted, shameful, and not Liberal.

  130. gobo says:

    Be sure to check out the big fella’s other YouTube videos. He and his friends suuuure like their guns.

  131. Takuan says:

    Re: Tibet; they had ancient guns, few of them, were facing the entire Chinese army and were betrayed by CIA promised help that never came.

  132. padster123 says:

    Is he an alien from a planet with extremely high gravity?

  133. jlbraun says:

    “@83, JLBraun: ergo, you would have thought, they would have less need of a gun and it should be women who use them. Unless, of course, there is some other factor (insecurity in one’s masculinity, say) at play in the mind of the gun lover?”

    I love when this happens.

    Remember when I said “Gun control is sexist”? You just proved why. Men are stronger and faster – thus, removing womens’ ability to own guns is abhorrently sexist. Disarm everyone, and men rule. Recognize even womens’ and blacks’ right to own guns, and an egalitarian society is easier to achieve.

    And if any gun owner cared about the gun as penis proxy, they wouldn’t carry one with a 3.5″ barrel .355″ in diameter. And are you saying that women gun owners just wish they had a penis? I don’t get anti-gun rhetoric sometimes.

  134. KlokWerk says:

    It’s interesting to see who all had snide remarks to make about this video.

    If it had been a video of a gay couple getting married, those same people would have been all in support of it.

    “Social liberal” is supposed to mean you’re accepting of all sorts of lifestyles and you don’t judge people just because they don’t live like you do. Instead it seems to be coming to mean “we accept people who live our particular alternative lifestyle and we reject all others”. So kinda like conservative Southern Baptists, but with the narrow mindset situated in a different place.

  135. Takuan says:

    people who really wants guns will always have them. Legally or not. All a gun-ban in America would do is keep people from bragging about their guns. That and save quite a few lives in accidental and crime of passion shootings. But what the hell, being able to brag about your guns is IMPORTANT.

  136. trieste says:

    I bet he can eat 18 burgers in 2 seconds, and probably has, many times. I’d love to see footage of him running.

  137. Landawon says:

    A real life application for button mashing!

  138. Takuan says:

    so who’s a “social liberal”?

    I don’t accept all “lifestyles”. No sane person accepts all “lifestyles”. Pedophiles for instance? I think playing with guns doesn’t qualify as a “lifestyle”. Maybe being a soldier, an assassin, a shootist… but what this little video slice portrays? I see some guy spraying bullets, clumsily, inaccurately. It isn’t even the fastest. Nope,no lifestyle here – unless you impugn one? Who’s being the bigot here?

  139. Alfie says:

    I’m reminded of the opening to IDIOCRACY.

    He can shoot an intruder 18 times in the head before he even gets near, but he can’t choose a salad once in a while?

  140. endotoxin says:

    @padster: Google “Buck Godot.”

  141. Antinous says:

    Teresa,

    Also, unless there’s a sexual kink out there I’ve completely missed, people aren’t doing that.

    Ugol’s Law: “If you ever ask ‘am I the only one who has this kink?’ the answer is invariably ‘no’”.

  142. minivanhalen says:

    Where’s the “Video of man firing 18 donuts into his piehole in 1 second”?

  143. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    Anthony, there may be many programs and seminars that address bullying, but that’s not the same thing as getting rid of it, and it still exists. Bullies may need help, but their victims need help first, and many of them aren’t getting it.

    (Addressing the causes of bullying? Great idea. Let me know when they get around to fixing the problem of power inequalities in incompletely socialized kids. After that, they can tackle original sin.)

    Oppressed kids who fantasize about revenge don’t have to use guns. The existence of guns may make it easier to enact those fantasies — but then, so does gasoline.

  144. Antinous says:

    If it had been a video of a gay couple getting married, those same people would have been all in support of it.

    What the fuck, Klokwerk? That’s the most irrelevant comment that I’ve yet seen on BB. I’m waiting with bated breath to hear why rapid pistol fire makes you think of gay weddings.

  145. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    Not my kink! I was asking whether it was possible that the kink existed, and I simply hadn’t noticed it. Then I decided that wasn’t possible. If people were humping their guns, EMTs would know about it, and I’d have heard about it.

  146. jlbraun says:

    Sorry:

    The message is passive-aggressive doubletalk:
    “I care about you, so I’m going to help you with this terrible affliction you’re suffering from.” It’s intolerant, bigoted, shameful, and not Liberal.

  147. KlokWerk says:

    Not everything is about you, Tak.

  148. Takuan says:

    I find your remark very firearmaphilaphobic. I refer you to the art of Victoria Van Dyke.

  149. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    JLBraun, are you still going on about “social liberals”? Are you sure that the class you imagine exists?

    Also, I would have thought that after Moonbat’s contretemps the other day, we’d all be more careful about assuming we know each other’s sexual orientations.

    (Moonbat corrected himself. He’s fine. But really, we should all be more careful.)

  150. Takuan says:

    That is a great deal of assumption on your part.

    As I stated: no baggage attached, can you put your gun away for a few days?

    I am asking a simple question about a totally voluntary choice. It is already clear you are capable of choosing to hold a gun. My question is; are you able to put it down? Are you capable of that choice? Who is the master here? You? Or the gun?

    Also,please use standard English. “Liberal”, capitalized or not,has a dictionary meaning. I have no interest in regionalized jargon, it contributes nothing and confuses much.

  151. noen says:

    I think that one thing that comes out in this thread is the breakdown of our society. “Cops have no obligation to protect you” in spite of the well known motto “To protect and serve”. I guess they should find a new motto.

    The problem is population growth. As the population grows you have to add more police, more courts and more jails. But those in power don’t want to pay for more police because they don’t think they benefit. Just as they don’t want to pay for schools for lower social classes for the same racist reasons. If you go to any American ghetto you’ll find many such services under represented and yet the people there do not have the power to change that situation because of how the government is structured.

    So it seems to me that the answer is not for everyone to walk around armed. The answer would be to change the structure of government. Of course, that is going to be hard because it is in someone’s interest that the poor be kept right where they are. Districts gerrymandered to favor the wealthy and the powerful, laws written for the advantage of the few over the many.

    Arming oneself in the face of a police force that refuses to do it’s job may seem like a rational response, I suppose it is, but it is also one step away from the rule of war lords and strongmen. That is not civilization, it is in fact a sure sign of it’s collapse.

  152. bardfinn says:

    Takuan:

    What part of “No, you don’t get to take away my right to bear arms and no, you don’t get to vote on it.” do you not understand?

    By your logic, no-one “needs” recordable audio cassettes, recordable VHS cassettes, or freely copyable digital media.

    Thankfully, we have rights inherently, not given to us by the state; We surrender some rights conditionally as a bargain for living in a society. And we do not outlaw tools that have legitimate purposes – we outlaw using them for illegitimate purposes.

    I hate guns.

    I love America more than I hate guns.

  153. KlokWerk says:

    I’m just saying, you post a video of an overweight guy firing a gun and look at the comments, so many of which are basically, “someone who doesn’t look like me is doing something I don’t approve of! Let’s make fun of him and talk bad about what he’s doing!”

    Yet other “alternative” activities will get rave reviews.

    It just goes to show, what we have here is not a culture that celebrates diversity but a narrow defined culture of intolerance with a different set of things we find tolerable. Your average “white power” redneck will be all in favor of fat guys firing guns and will be against gay marriage. Your average Boing Boinger seems to be against fat guys firing guns but would be in favor of gay marriage.

    It’s the same old song, just with a different tune.

  154. Hamish MacDonald says:

    Pretty much guaranteed that if this guy is on any grassy knoll, he’ll be acting alone.

  155. mrsomuch says:

    @ #5 – that is damned impressive, it’s the reload bit thats awesome.

    still pretty glad we don’t have such a gun culture in the UK, although it’s prob not too far off, at least for the government…

  156. Takuan says:

    Not everything is about me? Not everything is about ME!!??

    yes it is.

  157. Antinous says:

    I refer you to the art of Victoria Van Dyke.

    Would it have killed you to put that in earlier so that I didn’t spend all that time googling things like dirty sanchez kalashnikov?

  158. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    This is going to gross me out, right? Not gonna do it.

  159. Takuan says:

    She is a legitimate, recognized artist. Besides, you talk to me so your standards can’t be that high.

    There is another solution:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/15/world/main2013041.shtml

  160. Takuan says:

    All I can tell you is that emotional attachments to living human beings is far better than any love you may feel for a gun. I guess it’s just a question of what you choose to value.

    I think you have built a prison for yourself with bars of fear. At any time you wish, you can walk out of that cell and stand in the sunlight with people who choose not to live in fear. We’ll be waiting. No one can force you.

  161. Takuan says:

    he has modified the semi auto to full auto

  162. krylon says:

    100! Count em, 100 comments generated by 1 fat dude bump firing his beretta!

    Yay America!

  163. Antinous says:

    That is homophobic on several levels.

    1) It reduces gay people to actors in a political play. We’re not. We’re human beings. Use somebody else for your political examples.

    2) It equates gay marriage with fat guys firing guns. I don’t object to this because of differing political concerns, but because it utterly trivializes us.

    3) You think that leftists/liberals are universally supportive of GLBT rights. That’s a fantasy that no queer would claim as reality.

    I expect an apology.

  164. Patrick Dodds says:

    @97, JLBraun: That little “even” – I’m trying to work out if it was deliberate. Let’s say it was and I won’t rise to the bait.
    The whole “anyone can have one and then we’re all equal” argument? Mmm, doesn’t do it for me. Your’s has laser night sights (if such a thing exists – probably does. Whatever, something that gives you an advantage)? I’d best get some plus, I’ll carry mine with me all the time in case you do. And a concealed one in case you get to take my first one. Oh, and I’ll have it on a hair trigger in case you shoot first… I think you probably see where I’m going with this.
    @90 Beergood – Yowzah! You won’t mind if I don’t let my nephews come over and play given that you can’t right now put your finger on where your gun and ammunition are? What’s that, you were burgled last week and you think maybe your gun has gone? Ah don’t worry, there are literally millions of them out there – what’s another one on the street?

  165. themagus says:

    @ 152 Beergood

    you know i’ve never seen Mad Max… strange that.

  166. Santa's Knee says:

    Ok, I’ll be the first to actually give the guy his props without calling him fat or an American gun psycho:

    Goddamn, he’s fast!

    \\The rest of you are pathetic little internet bitches who can’t make a positive comment about anything.

  167. beergood says:

    Wow, this is still going on.

    I would like to posit a question:

    I assume many of us that frequent boingboing are tinkerers/makers. Last year I made a potato canon. I would imagine that many of us wouldn’t have a problem with that. There have been several videos/instructables linked from here about them.

    I built mine quite large, so it is definitely not an instrument of surprise, but I assure you that it could be quite lethal if mishandled.

    I didn’t have to make mine as large as I did, many others have made them smaller. I could probably make it even smaller than theirs. Some people even make theirs out of metal.

    At what point would a potato gun become unacceptable to most people in favor of banning guns?

    I am not baiting with this question, I am genuinely curious.

  168. Antinous says:

    I can’t believe that article didn’t make a single reference to Lysistrata.

  169. RugerRedhawk says:

    He and his friends suuuure like their guns.

    Who doesn’t?

    Still pretty glad we don’t have such a gun culture in the UK.

    You don’t know what you’re missing.

  170. johnR says:

    That’s not that impressive. He’s using one hand to hold and one to pump the trigger, he’s not aiming, and well.. that’s rather slow for a semi-automatic which has a very light trigger pull.

    With my semi-auto paintball marker I can pump out rounds at 8-10 rps, and hit a target.

    Check out this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og9ccsb1v6o&feature=related

    12 rounds from a revolver / hitting targets, with a reload, in 2 seconds… now THAT is impressive.

  171. thivai says:

    Han, Han, make-cheesay. Pa’sa tah ono caulky malia. Ee youngee d’emperolo teesaw. Twa spastika awahl no. Yanee dah poo noo.

    *bang bang bang bang bang*

  172. beergood says:

    I can all but guarantee that someone is having sex with their gun. Anything can be turned into a fetish, and the more that something becomes controversial/taboo the more it can attract unwarranted attention.

    As a wise man once said: “It there is a whole somewhere, someone is putting something into it”

    I didn’t come up with that, and I just grossed myself out.

  173. thentro says:

    I don’t think its modified. It is called “bump firing” where you use the recoil of the gun to fire the next shot on a semi-auto gun. It is wildly inaccurate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_fire

  174. Kickyfast says:

    @jlbraun

    “;)”

    This is not an argument.

    “Gun control is fundamentally a bigoted, racist, sexist, ageist, statist idea that is *so* 20th century. Get with the program.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

    “‘If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.’ –The Dalai Lama (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

    ‘If we feel we cannot avoid maiming or killing [in self-defense], we can at least try to do it with regret at having to cause another pain. If our intention to cause harm is weak, the karmic effect of the act will be less.’ — Buddhist Union, Oct. 96: 7

    Armed resistance to those that would cause you death or harm is a profound service to one’s own Buddha-nature.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

    “Exactly. Buddhism is against *violence* in self-defense, but is OK with *force*. This is why one never shoots to *kill* an attacker, one shoots to *stop* an attacker. Regrettably, the fastest way to stop an attacker is by shooting them center mass and perhaps killing them, but if they cease their attack after being shot, we do not kill a defenseless person.”

    Are you aware of the possibility of force killing when you pull the trigger? If you are—I don’t know of course, but I suspect you understand what happens when a bullet hits a body—then you accept the responsibility of what happens next.

    I do not see the correlation between my arguments and the Proof by Assertion fallacy. I’m stating my point repeatedly because I believe in it and I’m arguing for it; ergo, I want to give it as much exposure within my argument as possible. Your assumption that it is a fallacy is based on your belief that what I am stating is a lie. Better to say that than to say there’s something wrong with my logic.

    I think what you’re saying is a lie, too.

    ;)

  175. Takuan says:

    Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto

    and Lysistrata was a whole war

  176. elNico says:

    OMFG…

    #181 gandalf23

    So, yeah, elNico, I think jlbraun did hit the target with his earlier shot. Gun control is sexist, racist, bigoted, and ageist.

    Thanks Gandalf, I guess I can’t quote that since it’s a bit too exhaustive.

    You covered racist and sexist and a bit of ageist, then let bigoted just stand for good measure…and I’m sort-of grateful for that.

    Anyway, what you’re saying is because Blacks were second-class citizens and denied most rights, including buying a gun, the fact that they now can makes taking away the right to buy a gun racist??

    I honestly don’t care if you get off on guns and can get them out of a vending machine, but that twisted weaselly cop-out is just ridiculous…

    According to that logic you could never knock down a single public building in the USA that’s seen a bit of history…since Blacks were first not allowed in, then they were…so now it would be a racist act to demolish them.

    As for the helpless women in desperate need for pistols…they can rest assured they’ve got the good fighters on their side – at least when it comes to using them for some emotional gun debate.

    Elderly people…see above.

    The picture that you and your pseudo-Buddhist compadre paint here repeatedly is one of a society that is so drenched with guns that it is indeed dangerous to leave home without one.

    Fine…just don’t treat it like that’s the formula to aspire to…plenty of other countries won’t have a bar of it and I think their citizens don’t really suffer because of a lack of firearms.

    Especially the elderly and handicapped are very appreciative of a public health care system…they probably would even trade in their guns for one…I betcha!

  177. Antinous says:

    Homo sum

    Isn’t that my line?

  178. i0i says:

    Yeah, those government cats will pop 19 caps in any ass that dares say we have a gun culture in the UK.

    a) “The Government” don’t carry guns. Big Brown G-man don’t have no shooter.

    b) We do have a gun culture in the UK. The countryside is full of posh boys carrying shotguns and blasting anything that moves. We also have gangsters shooting each other in the cities.

  179. jlbraun says:

    “Oh, and I’ll have it on a hair trigger in case you shoot first… I think you probably see where I’m going with this. ”

    I do. The well-known and debunked “Internet Weapons Escalation argument”. First, as you are (probably) a law-abiding citizen, I have no problem with you carrying a gun. I have nothing to fear from someone law-abiding like you.

    And even if you are a criminal, I still have more to gain from being armed, even if you escalate your armament to match mine. In an interview with actual criminals in the Florida prison system, the #1 fear of criminals when committing a crime is encountering an armed citizen. As a criminal, you have a vested interest in not dying. Even if you have a much deadlier weapon than me, my weapon is more than capable of killing you, even if you have an automatic weapon and all I have is a .32ACP mousegun. You, as your fellow criminals have said, are scared of the tiniest chance that I might be armed with a deadly weapon.

    Lastly, the “escalation” argument is already moot, as you the criminal will disregard gun laws anyway to get whatever weapon you want – and if you do that, then law-abiding citizens like myself will do the “escalating”, by breaking the law and acquiring defensive firearms!

    The “escalation” argument fails at virtually all levels. Try again.

  180. gobo says:

    Re: folks complaining that pointing out the big guy’s gun videos is a bit “intolerant”…

    I’m no fan of guns, myself, as I think they’re boring blunt instruments, but I’m fine with people having and using them responsibly. But I get a bit creeped out by firearms porn of people pointing their overly large guns at the camera, looking all macho and sinister. Yes, I’m impressed that you have an arsenal. Jesus.

  181. anthony says:

    (Addressing the causes of bullying? Great idea. Let me know when they get around to fixing the problem of power inequalities in incompletely socialized kids. After that, they can tackle original sin.)

    Sarcasm was not the tone I was attempting to set.
    Anti-bullying programs are in place becase they are they best answer we have at the moment. To abandon them because they don’t eliminate the problem entirely would be irresponsible.

    I agree many kids are not getting help! That’s part of why I started teaching. My first job was teaching severely disturbed kids, mostly abuse cases, who were bullied (to the extreme) and in turn became bullies. They were the victims of bullies who needed help first…
    I don’t expect to fix this problem in my lifetime either, but so far I’m in there trying.
    I am aware of social injustice and inadequacies of the school system, don’t worry.
    The cause of helping the bullied is as noble as the cause to help those who bully, even if there is no foreseeable remedy. Without adressing the one you are constantly doing damage control from the other.
    Anyway, you restated my original thought by writing:
    “Oppressed kids who fantasize about revenge don’t have to use guns. The existence of guns may make it easier to enact those fantasies “.

  182. Shasta McNasty says:

    OK, but where did the 18 bullets go? If they all hit the target that’s one thing, but if they were just sprayed randomly that’s something completely different and much less interesting.

  183. Anonymous says:

    This is highly amusing! So far, I have to say based on the posts that the pro-gun posters seem to have an edge on reading comprehension and factual arguments. Kudos on the wild postulation on both sides!

    Some more fuel for the fires of debate.

    The armed disabled/frail/otherwise defenseless.

    Police not being able to respond instantly to violent crime.

    The quirky definition of “assault weapons”

    The gun culture in Japan focused on replica firearms.

    Weapons as art.

    /not the most impressive video though

  184. Steve Keys says:

    @ #5, I wouldn’t want to make that guy angry.

    I’m sure that dude could absorb all those shots. And yes, he sure does seem to love this guns.

  185. jlbraun says:

    “Are you sure that the class you imagine exists?”

    Yes.

    “we’d all be more careful about assuming we know each other’s sexual orientations.”

    I said nothing about anyone’s orientation at all. I am saying that takuan’s rhetoric is virtually identical to that used by bigoted fundamentalist ex-gay ministries, and that such language is intolerant and wrong.

    “I am asking a simple question about a totally voluntary choice. It is already clear you are capable of choosing to hold a gun. My question is; are you able to put it down? Are you capable of that choice? Who is the master here? You? Or the gun?”

    Ugh. Still with this. Would you at least attempt to separate yourself from the language of ignorant anti-gay religious fundies?

    To answer your question, of course I can. Doing so is about as significant as voluntarily going without another tool like a cell phone or flashlight for a day and has zero moral or social import.

    I also choose to put it in the safe when I visit countries that happen to be either juntas, thugocracies or dictatorships for business or vacation. I could choose not to go because they do not recognize a right to arms, but I do not. I actually feel rather safe in the several dictatorships that I visit, because the penalties for even simple burglary are severe and the police often inadvertently kill suspects under “interrogation”. Criminals tend to not flourish in those societies, but I would not want to live there. But because our society respects the individual, I choose to carry a gun when I am here, because I am a part of *this* society and not living under some junta.

  186. Thebes says:

    will have the guts to put the whole gun control question to a real vote

    Uhm… RIGHTS don’t get voted on. They are something the founders of this nation believed were inherent to all mankind, even if some nations denied them to their subjects. That our Founding Fathers believed “the people” (notice it does not say “the states”) had a right to keep and bear arms is not surprising, given that they used their own arms to raise up in revolution against England. They wished to insure we, the people, had the same ability should their new government ever get power hungry.

    A bit of trivia to ponder for gun-grabbers. What started the revolutionary war? The British coming to seize the arms of the colonists! Want to guess what those of us who believe we MUST keep our arms to ensure a free society will to if our rulers try to seize them? I hope that never happens, it would be very very ugly.

    If we want to reduce crime, perhaps we should stop paroling violent felons. We would quickly cut the crime rate in half. Make room for them by releasing all those from prison who have never actually harmed another with their “crimes”, even with the violent felons all locked up, overcrowded jails will be a thing of the past.

    Banning law abiding citizens (armed people are citizens, unarmed are subjects), works for the criminals who are then sure that their victims are unarmed. A well armed populace deters crime. Studies have shown the only thing effective against mass shootings is an armed populace, the police are always too far away to stop it, but look at what happened in Colorado Springs when a civilian had a gun- a massacre was stopped.

    Live Free or Die.

  187. anthony says:

    Sorry to add this, but just an observation:
    check the number of “what if” violent threat scenarios posted here.
    You know, “Let’s say a young woman is about to be attacked in her home, BUT she has/has no GUN handy.”
    Revenge fantasies?

  188. duskiboy says:

    I feel sorry for him in more than one way.
    I also feel sorry for boingboing to promote this b###shit.

    regards duskiboy

    ps #16: he IS actually a fast fat american gun psycho.

  189. igor512 says:

    @160 Antinous

    Do you think that gun owners aren’t human beings? Don’t try and exclude yourself from a debate simply because “you have feelings too.” Klokwerk makes a legitimate point.

    I for one don’t appreciate the assumption that all gun owners like hunting, firing wildly into the air, and fatty food. It’s just as bigoted as stereotyping the GLBT community, except apparently my preference in recreation doesn’t mean as much as a sexual preference. How do you justify that?

  190. jlbraun says:

    I think that’s a Beretta 92. What the man is doing is called a “bumpfire”.

    And the comments here from anti-gun people make me ashamed to be a liberal. The intolerance and bigotry towards guns here is staggering. Ugh.

    What this man and his friends are doing in the YouTube videos did not result in harm to another living soul, or put anyone in danger. All guns were handled safely.

    I’m a flaming liberal Democrat in favor of universal healthcare and gay marriage, and I’m a Buddhist.

    I also own several guns, including a civilian defense rifle patterned after the AK-47, a bolt-action rifle with an 800m range, a compact pistol to carry with me, and a combat shotgun. I enjoy practical shooting matches. Of course, I do not hunt.

    Gun control is fundamentally a bigoted, racist, sexist, ageist, statist idea that is *so* 20th century. Get with the program.

  191. Takuan says:

    the interpretation of rights IS subject to a vote. Owning a gun is not a basic human right. A right to security of person exists – that can be accomplished by other means than a gun in every pocket.

  192. igor512 says:

    @145, Antinous again

    “That would be locking the barn door after the cow’s head has already been blown off. The notion, as I understand it, is to prevent unnecessary death and maiming rather than to let it happen and then punish the perpetrator.”

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. We are supposed to live in a world where we are innocent until proven guilty. By shifting your focus to prevention, you immediately assume that EVERYONE will be irresponsible and cause a crime. If you assume that I will be irresponsible with my firearms, why can’t I assume that you will be irresponsible with your automobile? With your own education? With your sex life?

    You can NOT assume guilt in a free society. We punish the people who we prove are guilty. The responsible people should not be punished for the unjust deeds of others.

  193. danfan says:

    @16

    Pointing out his immunity to recoil is perfectly valid.

  194. thentro says:

    Here is a video of someone else bump firing. No skill, no accuracy, not impressive.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MydCuTfgt0k

  195. Patrick Dodds says:

    “Lastly, the “escalation” argument is already moot, as you the criminal will disregard gun laws anyway to get whatever weapon you want – and if you do that, then law-abiding citizens like myself will do the “escalating”, by breaking the law and acquiring defensive firearms!”

    I think you mentioned tautology first, but then you are expecting me to pull similar weapons on you so you won’t mind a bit of return fire (the fact that you originally suggested my argument was a “bit” tautological we shall let pass – I’m sure it was a slip as you will be aware that either something is or isn’t tautological): ‘Once you have guns in society, there is no return’ seems to be your argument, a tautology if ever there was one. But, over time, people have stopped carrying spears, knives, clubs and crossbows. As a race, we’ve come to recognise that there are better ways of doing things than “mine is more deadly than yours”. Well, at least on an individual level. The same could be true of guns. But it takes trust.

  196. jlbraun says:

    @#26

    Well, bumpfiring is fun even if it’s not accurate.

    :)

  197. Anonymous says:

    its a beretta 93r. its normally burst fire, he just needs to press the trigger 6 times to fire the whole clip

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_93R

  198. Antinous says:

    Revenge fantasies?

    Violent fantasies are a normal response to stress. Dwelling on them, posting about them, buying guns while thinking about them – not so good. I have mixed feelings about guns, but I am completely clear how I feel about really angry people with guns.

  199. jlbraun says:

    “then you accept the responsibility of what happens next.”

    Exactly. I accept the responsibility, karmically and spiritually. If someone dies as a result of my defense, then I will feel bad and we will both share the responsibility for his death. If he does not die, I will summon aid for him. I doubt he would do the same for me.

    I’m glad that you can use teh Wikipedias too. I’m glad your arguments have become more cogent after reading the “logical fallacies” section.

    Consider the following – gun control really is quite racist, so it’s not so much an appeal to ridicule as a statement of the content of past laws, read here:

    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html
    “Virginia’s response to Turner’s Rebellion prohibited free blacks “to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead…”

    And the reason that I included the Buddhist quotes was not to support my position prima facie, but to answer the specific statements intimating that armed self defense is antithetical to Buddhism. So it’s not strictly an appeal to authority, but a statement of fact: Buddhist thought does allow for armed self defense with lethal force.

    So, with that out of the way, where is the harm in me, a loving law-abiding Buddhist, owning a gun for defensive purposes? What do you have to fear from me?

    And the 15yo could just have easily (if not more easily) killed his family by dousing the entire place with gasoline and burning the house down. Eliminating guns wouldn’t necessarily save their lives at all.

  200. duskiboy says:

    I also feel sorry for the #24 buddhist with a combat shotgun. does it get any wierder?

  201. Kickyfast says:

    @-107

    “Uhm… RIGHTS don’t get voted on. They are something the founders of this nation believed were inherent to all mankind, even if some nations denied them to their subjects.”

    By “this nation,” I assume you mean the United States of America. It is your faith in the infallibility of your nation’s founders that we are discussing here. “Believed” is an important word. Not “knew,” “believed.”

    “studies have shown the only thing effective against mass shootings is an armed populace”

    Funny, an armed populace sure makes mass shootings easier, too!

    “Live Free or Die.”

    Gee whiz, I never knew it was that simple! Thanks for sloganeering this whole mess away from me, Thebes!

  202. Takuan says:

    I submit my language is simple and direct English (fundies?).

    You acknowledge a gun is just another tool like a flashlight. I cannot agree that it has zero social import since killing people is rather significant.

    My next question is: If you are capable of putting away your gun for a few days, why don’t you? I am interested in reasons of course – not just “I choose not to”.

    I do note some disagreement in logic in your last statement though. If you live in a society that respects the individual, why do you fear the government wishes to take your gun? Like some junta?

  203. Santa's Knee says:

    @#s 23 and 26:

    Much appreciation for backing my point, people.

  204. spencerluck says:

    A lot of you here are missing one of the most important points of all combative training (I imagine you’ve never had any):
    “Cry in the Dojo, Laugh on the Battlefield.”

    -Every single sensei/sifu from every single class I’ve taken has explained that the Only thing you do, unless you can’t get out of a fight, is to Run Like Hell. -Chuck Norris himself routinely has handed his wallet over to muggers.

    You train so you Don’t Have to fight; but you’re ~Ready if God forbid the time does come.

    You train with a gun and respect it so you know there’s only a Very Narrow envelope of when you use it. -And you don’t use it otherwise.

    Oftentimes, just the racking of the slide on a pump-action shotgun is enough to deter someone outside your door.

    I imagine JLBraun was expressing also his grasp of Duality. -Or was that the Taoists more than the Buddhists? I’m not sure.

    But there is such a concept as a “Peaceful Warrior”.

    I feel that many who are so insanely Dogmatic in thought are coming from a position of Fear and they reject All experience with guns or combat out of hand.

    -Such as Liberals who have become just as intolerant as the people they criticize; though back in the day, the liberal party USED to be about accepting and being tolerant of ideas different than your own and looking for their possible Merits. Which is easy for people to say, but hard to do. Ex: 2008 USA overly-extremist liberal mindset.

    It seems many of you have the good fortune of living in situations where you don’t have to deal with gun violence or other. A friend of mine lives in New York around the corner from a shop that was held up. Fortunately, all the regulars at that shop carry guns, legally or illegally. The bad guy didn’t make it.

    I sincerely hope that all here never get into a situation where gun violence is present or self-defence with a gun is necessary. Things in real life are NEVER as clear cut as they are in the reductive Fantasies of an oversimplified, extremist and Dogmatic mindset.

    Life is not Arithmetic, it’s Calculus; get used to it.

    BTW: It’s not a Stetchkin, it’s a Beretta. The profile is unmistakable.

  205. noen says:

    Therefore — this discussion about the relative merits of guns is pointless. What is needed is more and better government. Neither conceal and carry nor gun control address the root cause.

  206. Patrick Dodds says:

    @Gandalf23: Strictly speaking, that Captain Holly you quote should learn to count – that’s a double redundancy alert, at least from your perspective.
    Hey, I’m only saying.

    Interesting q. about the potato gun Beergood – you could have made the same point about carrying a knife. Thing is, we draw somewhat arbitrary lines all the time. 71 mph isn’t statistically that much more dangerous than 70 mph, but here in the UK the former is illegal, the latter fine (on the right roads). Thus your question becomes, again perhaps here in the UK where wandering around with a handgun isn’t quite the done thing, when does a potato canon become

    “any firearm; in the limited sense, a long cannon with high muzzle velocity and flat trajectory.”?

    (www.globalsecurity.org – talking about ships guns I think).

    Or, of course, any one of a number of other definitions.

    Interesting fact (if off topic): My brother-in-law was once woken in the middle of the night by a gun pointed at his face by the anti-terror squad after he and his friend had made their potato launcher just that bit too loud. The Chief Constable of Yorkshire was actually a happy man later after a demo at the police HQ – he’d rather a couple of students with a potato launcher that a terrorist with a bomb or, come to that, anyone armed and with ill-intent.

  207. anthony says:

    Look.
    This kind of thread is JL’s life and/or job. Do a search.
    He’s in blog after blog, turning up after someone makes a negative comment about guns, gun ownership, gun obsession, etc. etc. etc.. He chastises the poster and identifies himself as a liberal, then the fight is on. And he sticks in there until the last post, or he is booted.
    You can refute the ridiculous claims (guns in gym class are beneficial, action beats reaction every time), or spend hours fact checking them (I don’t suggest WIKI-too many uncited references). But revealing the spin won’t really matter.
    Or you can stop posting and let him be on his way.

  208. padster123 says:

    @jlbraun

    “Gun control is fundamentally a bigoted, racist, sexist, ageist, statist idea that is *so* 20th century. Get with the program.”

    What program would that be? The one that results in God-knows how many injuries and fatalities a year in the US, and elsewhere? Guns are nasty little machines, fundamentally designed for killing, and they cause untold misery. No matter how much some people like to have them round as a (twisted) hobby.

  209. Tensegrity says:

    I suspect that just off screen, he has successfully bagged a giant barrel of high fructose corn syrup which, when properly dried and cured, should provide this rugged frontiersman adequate provisions for the brutal winter to come.

  210. Takuan says:

    but his father’s unlocked and loaded gun made it easy

  211. jlbraun says:

    “A right to security of person exists – that can be accomplished by other means than a gun in every pocket.”

    Goes the old saw:

    “When you need help right now, the police are only minutes away.”

    Did you know that the police have no individual duty to protect any one person? Google “Warren v. District of Columbia”.

    “‘Once you have guns in society, there is no return’ seems to be your argument, a tautology if ever there was one.”

    OK, so we both agree this is true. You can’t un-invent guns.

    “But, over time, people have stopped carrying spears, knives, clubs and crossbows.”

    Uh, we gave up carrying those because guns are more effective. Each one of those requires strength to use, which women and the elderly lack.

    “As a race, we’ve come to recognise that there are better ways of doing things than “mine is more deadly than yours”.”

    Indeed. Google “Prisoner’s Dilemma”. It shows that entities possessed of the ability to eliminate the other (or using force to get what they want) are better off cooperating. You don’t have to remove the ability to use force to get harmony.

    Here is another take on it:

    “Why the gun is civilization”
    http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

    “Well, at least on an individual level. The same could be true of guns. But it takes trust.”

    It could be true for guns, but I’ll continue to carry mine until we find that out. And it does take trust. Which is why the state I live in *trusts* me with a concealed handgun.

  212. Takuan says:

    rat’s head, ox’s neck

    America has perhaps what? Five percent of the population of the planet? That means just about ninety five percent of the human race doesn’t have the same gun death stats mixed in with high GNP, lax laws, etc. America is doing SOMETHING wrong.

  213. Mark Jaquith says:

    the interpretation of rights IS subject to a vote.

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    That’s not ambiguous, unless your reading comprehension level is very, very low.

  214. RugerRedhawk says:

    @padster123: I can tell you’re knocking something you’ve never tried. This is a recipe for failure.

  215. jlbraun says:

    “If you are capable of putting away your gun for a few days, why don’t you? I am interested in reasons of course – not just “I choose not to”.”

    Because my sister was robbed and could have been raped. Because my friend was stalked by a psycho. Because I had gay friends that received death threats. Because two friends in high school were raped. Because a guy in my dorm raped somebody. Because I had a friend who worked in a rape crisis center. Because in all of these cases, the police cannot and will not ever ever ever be there in time to stop anything, they can only take statements from witnesses, and maybe the victim if they’re still alive. Because if I need a gun, I will need it RIGHT NOW. Because the police (by law) are prevented from having an individual duty to protect any one person.

    Because in the end, bad things happen to good people, and those good people never thought it would happen to them.

  216. jlbraun says:

    “sslt rfls, jst t lv yr lf? ”

    n sslt rfl s flly tmtc frrm n n ntrmdt crtrdg. sslt rfls hv bn tghtly rgltd nd rgstrd snc 1934 (bt th cncpt ws nvntd n 1943), nd n lgl cvln-wnd n hs vr bn sd n ny crm snc thy strtd trckng thm.

    “sslt wpns”, whch (ths wk) mns sm-t cpy f mltry frrm wth hgh mgzn cpcty nd pstl grp, r sd n pprxmtly 0.18% f ll frrm crm ccrdng t stdy by Klck. Thy r vrtlly nn-prblm, nd ny ttmpt t rgltng thm stms frm mrl pnc nd dsr fr cntrl rthr thn ny dsr t ctlly rdc crm r vlnc.

    “sslt wpns” n my stt hv vbrnt sprtng cmmnty srrndng thm, nd hv bn sd n svrl hm dfnss n Flrd nd Txs.

  217. jlbraun says:

    “but his father’s unlocked and loaded gun made it easy”

    Or the main gas line going to the stove. Or the gallon of gas for the lawnmower…

    There are a dozen things in that house besides the gun that would have enabled the 15yo psycho to kill his entire family easily. The gun was but one of them.

  218. beergood says:

    @101 Patrick Dodds

    I don’t think you read my post correctly:

    “I am not even sure if I have any ammunition in the house. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I don’t know where it would be, it’s just I don’t remember if I have any left.”

    I am stating that I know where my gun is, and where my ammo case is (both are safe and secure). I just don’t remember if I exhausted my supply.

    So your nephew is more than welcome to come by and play.

    Also, not that I am aligning myself with JLBraun’s arguments, but when you say:

    “@97, JLBraun: That little “even” – I’m trying to work out if it was deliberate. Let’s say it was and I won’t rise to the bait. ”

    That is kind of a passive aggressive way of taking the bait, and then dismissing it with a certain smugness. Sorry, but I think it read kind of crappy.

    This discussion was more fun when it wasn’t so mean spirited, which is why I doubt that the issue of gun violence will be resolved any time soon.

  219. Patrick Dodds says:

    “It could be true for guns, but I’ll continue to carry mine until we find that out.”

    So fear and suspicion of the other carry the day. Sad.

  220. noen says:

    #158 posted by KlokWerk
    It just goes to show, what we have here is not a culture that celebrates diversity but a narrow defined culture of intolerance with a different set of things we find tolerable.

    This is the “You are a narrow minded bigot just like me” defense common to internet trolls since the ’90s. My god you’re boring.

  221. beergood says:

    I am pretty sure I could kill you with my potato canon, but that isn’t why I made it, or why I still have it. But I would also be hard pressed to explain any other reason to own it that doesn’t also sound a little silly. I mean really, when will I ever have a practical reason for getting a potato over 200 yards away in a matter of seconds.

    But it is an interesting machine built for a very narrow purpose that can provide much entertainment. So can a 12 gauge shotgun (or any other gun, for that matter). By the very nature of being an inanimate object no machine can have intentions of its own. It is the user that gives it purpose.

    Also, that guy sure is fat.

  222. Takuan says:

    we’ll ban potato guns when they kill as many people as hand guns.

    Quite funny how so many that doggedly defend an imaginary “right” to carry a machine gun to work and school are so frequently the same that support fascist laws like the “Patriot” Act

  223. Technical Writing Geek says:

    “If you are capable of putting away your gun for a few days, why don’t you? ”

    I think the point of having guns is as a deterrent. People around here keep their hunting guns locked away all season, but hanguns are kept at the ready in case the city’s crime wave explodes outside its boundaries.

    Did you know that not all neighborhoods have the same chance of crime occurring in them? That some areas are small communities where people don’t want to be raped, robbed, and beaten? That when they defend themselves, they’re not taken advantage of?

    I’m not a big fan of guns, at all. But I’ve seen why people carry them and have stopped being critical of guns as a result. You can’t end violence by disarming everyone.

  224. jlbraun says:

    “I suspect that just off screen, he has successfully bagged a giant barrel of high fructose corn syrup which, when properly dried and cured, should provide this rugged frontiersman adequate provisions for the brutal winter to come.”

    OK, that’s friggin’ hilarious. I don’t care which side you’re on.

  225. jlbraun says:

    “The one that results in God-knows how many injuries and fatalities a year in the US, and elsewhere?”

    Error of logic: You assume that injuries and deaths resulting from people using guns would not have occurred if guns were removed. Google “substitution effect”.

    Error of composition #1: Guns are tools. If left on the top shelf of my safe, my 9mm will still be there 100 years later. It will not have grown little legs of its own and run around shooting people.

    Error of composition #2: Subset of error of logic above. Societies exist where the overall level of crime and violence is higher, yet guns are banned or tightly restricted.

    Error of composition #3: Americans shoot 9,000,000,000 rounds of ammunition yearly, just for practice. There are 13,500 murders by gun each year. Therefore, the primary purpose of guns is not killing humans, but simple recreation.

    Why are you being so intolerant of those that make different life choices than you?

  226. Patrick Dodds says:

    Well apologies Beer (and JLBraun if you took it that way too) – not meant to be mean spirited, that was just my interpretation. I must have read too much into it. And fun – I’m all for that – a bit of lightheartedness goes a long way, even in gun control debates. Sorry if I went off the rails a bit!

  227. elNico says:

    #24 jlbraun

    Gun control is fundamentally a bigoted, racist, sexist, ageist, statist idea that is *so* 20th century. Get with the program.

    Wow, you pumped those out like gun guy…not really targeting, but lots of ‘em…

  228. Takuan says:

    yes the gun was but one. One unnecessary, easily removable one. One which a society drenched in images of gun violence linked to emotional eruption would be a self-fulfilling choice.

    The gun has become such a totemic object that it has its own life and power. It is one thing to twitch the smallest muscle and pull a trigger and suddenly wield the very power of the gods over life and death. Quite another to stab or hit or even burn.
    I recollect a First World War battle where after the ammunition ran out, both sides threw rocks because they couldn’t nerve themselves to close with bayonets as trained. Guns make it too,too easy.

    America has more than one addiction, but the gun is the worst.

  229. romulusnr says:

    It looks to me like he’s using his stomach to reflect the recoil of the gun back forwards towards his finger. I thought people usually fired handguns held at arms length.

    I’ve heard of shooting from the hip, but not shooting from the gut.

  230. Antinous says:

    Anthony,

    Which is why I called troll several days ago. Don’t feed the troll!

  231. Takuan says:

    @115

    and what do you imagine a “well regulated militia” AT THE TIME OF WRITING meant?

  232. Joe Important says:

    I’m just trying to figure out how he got his sausage finger into the trigger guard.

  233. Patrick Dodds says:

    Very well put Takuan.

  234. jlbraun says:

    “I also feel sorry for the #24 buddhist with a combat shotgun. does it get any wierder?”

    How backhandedly intolerant of you.

    Buddhism is perfectly compatible with armed self-defense:

    “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” –The Dalai Lama (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

    “If we feel we cannot avoid maiming or killing [in self-defense], we can at least try to do it with regret at having to cause another pain. If our intention to cause harm is weak, the karmic effect of the act will be less.” — Buddhist Union, Oct. 96: 7

    Armed resistance to those that would cause you death or harm is a profound service to one’s own Buddha-nature.

  235. Moon says:

    #233 Gandalf, so we should stop the ban on sale and use of cocaine? If we did, there would be a huge problem, right???

    /Your analogy breaks down.

  236. beergood says:

    No harm no foul.

    Guns have taken one major toll today, my productivity. I have barely accomplished anything in the last three hours. At least it has been enjoyable. Now I gotta go fix some ‘puters. See you all around.

    Also, everyone knows that you don’t hunt high fructose corn syrup with a hand gun. You need an AK-47.

  237. jlbraun says:

    “So fear and suspicion of the other carry the day. Sad.”

    *facepalm*

    Since you failed to google for “Prisoner’s Dilemma”, I’ll do it for you:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

    “In game theory, the prisoner’s dilemma (sometimes abbreviated PD) is a type of non-zero-sum game in which two players may each “cooperate” with or “defect” (i.e., betray) the other player. In this game, as in all game theory, the only concern of each individual player (“prisoner”) is maximizing his/her own payoff, without any concern for the other player’s payoff. The unique equilibrium for this game is a Pareto-suboptimal solution—that is, rational choice leads the two players to both play defect even though each player’s individual reward would be greater if they both played cooperate.”

    “By analysing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod stated several conditions necessary for a strategy to be successful.

    Nice
    The most important condition is that the strategy must be “nice”, that is, it will not defect before its opponent does. Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice; therefore a purely selfish strategy will not “cheat” on its opponent, for purely utilitarian reasons first.
    Retaliating
    However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must sometimes retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad choice, as “nasty” strategies will ruthlessly exploit such softies.
    Forgiving
    Another quality of successful strategies is that they must be forgiving. Though they will retaliate, they will once again fall back to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to play defects. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points.
    Non-envious
    The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent (impossible for a ‘nice’ strategy, i.e., a ‘nice’ strategy can never score more than the opponent). ”

    This means that given a society of armed men, the nicest, most forgiving, non-envious will tend to win. Criminals, while they get short-term gain by repeatedly defecting from the social contract, are eventually eliminated via retaliation. If gun control removes the ability to retaliate from some members, repeated defectors win. If you attempt to force the “always cooperate” on everyone, that works until *just one person* gains the ability to use force and defect, and she wins everything.

    There you go. It’s not “fear and suspicion”, it’s a Nash equilibrium. :)

  238. minimalniemand says:

    Ok, some of you ppl say, “guns are just tools” “used for recreation” and so on.
    Now, tomorrow I’ll start building a machine, that slowly rips off the skin off people and then ripples salt on the skinned body, while chemicals ensure that the person on this machine is conscious all the time.
    But I’ll never use it with human beings of course! I just have it in my basement for recreation. for fun. its just a tool.

    Or I always hear “guns do not kill people, people kill people”. Well if thats true, why not say “cocaine does not kill people, but the people who cant handle it get killed by it”?

    Even if there are people, who use firearms responsible – you can not guarantee, that all people who have access to guns do so.

    And to the buddhist gun-lover: The Dalai Lhama is not Buddhism. I think there are a lot of different opinions on this one. Not to kill is absolutely elementary in buddhism. To kill a person to protect your life is totally self-oriented and so is complete against the principle of emptiness of self and all things.

  239. Takuan says:

    Yes bad things do happen. I have a few of my own I could recount. Oddly enough, in more than few of them, having a gun with me would have made them infinitely worse.

    Robbery is something the police,courts and insurance companies can deal with. It may be satisfying to kill someone taking your possessions by force, but who really wants to live somewhere where the death penalty is dealt out on the street? Tempting, but impractical.

    Stalking,threats and intimidation? A gun is excessive answer to those. Again, existing social systems have evolved over many centuries of civilization. We started out killing those who threatened. Much of the daily goodness we enjoy comes from leaving that behind. If you are that intimidated, there are other measures lesser than lethal force.

    Rape, now that is a difficult one. Like any act of violence – and it is an act of violence – it evokes a visceral response. The sexual component makes it more volatile. I myself would almost certainly lose all self-control if confronting someone attacking me and mine in that way. It has happened in my circle and over the years. I do not have it anywhere near the surface of my thoughts though. If it were such a daily threat that it demanded action,of course I would do something about it. Not necessarily carry a gun and give guns to everyone I know.

    You seem to live somewhere where the civil authority does not function. Does everyone around you also feel so threatened?

  240. jlbraun says:

    “Guns have taken one major toll today, my productivity.”

    Indeed. Me too. Out.

  241. Takuan says:

    even trolls need people

  242. gandalf23 says:

    Why not just let me have my guns, and if I use them in an illegal manner, like say shooting someone when non in a self defense or defense of others situation, then take them away and lock me up in jail? As long as I’m responsible with them, why not let me keep them? And even acquire more?

  243. Antinous says:

    Yeah, but people need trolls like snails need a bucket of salt.

  244. James Turner says:

    Wasn’t he the end of level boss in contra?

  245. Jake0748 says:

    Man, that guy sure is fat, huh?

  246. remmelt says:

    I’ve never really understood the “we can overthrow our unconstitutional government” thing. That was written in another age, people. This will never, EVER, happen. I dare you say it’s not true. Nothing will ever get the “militia” out of their homes, off their couches, away from the TV.
    And don’t even say it’s a well-regulated militia. It’s codified, and that’s pretty much all you can say about it.

    The next point I would like to bring up is that unlike a club or a knife, guns are really easy to use. It’s really easy to kill someone, even without force. This can be explained as a good thing (women, the frail, etc.) I say with this great force comes great responsibility. I do not see great responsibility. I see a jack-ass firing a gun wildly at nothing.

    Also, since we’re bringing up gay marriage anyway, isn’t it true that the constitution needed to be interpreted against this basic freedom? Land of the free, something or other, but not two guys wanting to marry. On the other hand, the gun thing is set in stone! Militia! Government overthrowings!

    I would like to link to a Wikipedia article as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

    I do see what’s interesting about guns though. Mechanically delicate, well oiled, with a nice snap, they’re really pretty cool. The weight is just right, nicely balanced, the whole thing. Plus, since I’m a boy, I like it when stuff goes boom. And, yes, the power is fascinating.

    Live free or obsess!

  247. zikzak says:

    I support gun control and disarmament, but only if it’s universal. That means civilians, organized criminals, police, and even the military must be subject to the restrictions.

    To restrict weapon access to one class of people (civilians) while allowing government-favored groups like the police and military to carry weapons creates an unbalanced situation. Such an imbalance of force lends itself to abuse, corruption, and oppression.

    It is a pretty consistent truth that people with power use it to screw over people without power. And the power to kill is one of the most basic forms of power there is. Gun control is inherently not about eliminating the power to kill, it’s about restricting that power to select institutions, namely the police and military.

    So while I agree that it would be ideal to eliminate the power to kill entirely, it’s so unlikely as to be fantasy. The second best option is not, however, to remove the power to kill from certain classes of people, because this just sets those classes up for oppression and violence at the hands of those who retain power. The second best option is to distribute the power to kill as evenly as possible amongst all people, so that the incentive to actually /use/ that power brings with it as much danger and negative consequences as possible. This is the most realistic way to creating a society where people work together because they want to, rather than because someone, somewhere with more power than them is coercing them to.

  248. Steiny says:

    This is no extraordinary feat for anyone who ever played Namco’s Point Blank either at home or arcade!

  249. Moon says:

    But most of the pro-gun crowd isn’t using their guns for protection or deterrence, they just want to hear explosions and blow things up. They have ranges so they can shoot off mini-guns. Your typical NRA type has thousands of rounds of ammo in their house. That’s not for deterrent purposes, unless the terrorists are going to lead legions of Republican Guards into Kansas sometime soon.

  250. the specialist says:

    he will be dead in five years, one way or another.

  251. beergood says:

    I almost forgot about this:

    Two days ago I signed up for a blogspot blog. I really can’t imagine why anyone would want to read my musings. It is really more of an experiment for me and a couple of friends to play with. I am not encouraging anyone here to visit it, especially because there isn’t much there yet (save for one picture that won’t be described here).

    The reason I am bringing it up is because of what I named it:

    http://iamgoingtoshootyouintheface.blogspot.com/

    I realize that that can be seen as somewhat tasteless. And it is. It is just something that me and my friends have said to each other for years during only the most mild of disagreements (such as picking a fast food joint).

    example:

    Beergood: Hey, let’s order shots.

    Squid: I’m not drinking shots tonight.

    Beergood: I am going to shoot you in the face!

    I guess gun violence really is pervasive in our society.

  252. anthony says:

    American public high school teacher, here.
    I can report a high level of interest in the “hobby” being discussed, across a wide spectrum of kids where I teach. Lots of kids enjoy revenge fantasies for being outsiders, and many students are enthralled by gangster culture as well. School shootings aren’t all that rare in this country anymore.
    Last year I taught at an alternative setting for kids who were removed from the regular system for such things as bringing a gun to (middle) school.
    I had a gun pulled on me back in the Eighties when I was in high school.
    I’m personally sick of the national obsession.

  253. jlbraun says:

    “in more than few of them, having a gun with me would have made them infinitely worse.”

    So, are there *any* situations ever where the victim having a gun would make things *better* instead of worse?

    “Much of the daily goodness we enjoy comes from leaving that behind. If you are that intimidated, there are other measures lesser than lethal force.”

    Care to tell that to the stalker who left messages saying “I’ll cut you” on a friend’s voicemail? Or broke all the windows on her car? “We, as a society, left all that behind.” Yeah, that will work. Please.

    “You seem to live somewhere where the civil authority does not function.”

    No, I live in the United States, where it is codified in law that cops don’t have the obligation to protect me at all. We all are “the civil authority”. And my town has a very low crime rate thanks to that.

  254. Fnarf says:

    This is what you get for trying to take his Doritos.

  255. Takuan says:

    yep, really fat

  256. Patrick Dodds says:

    JL Braun – honestly and truly, much of the rest of the world finds it very difficult to understand your attitude to guns. Not to say it isn’t OK, it is of course your country, knock yourselves out. However do you not think there could be a downside?

    Deaths by gunshot 1994 per 100,000:
    USA 14.24
    England and Wales 0.41

    Guns being available, or is it the weather over here you think? Sorry if that comes across as preachy (hey, we have our problems with drunken yobbery and general up-tightness – I have no right to any sort of moral high ground), but sometimes it helps to get a bit objective.
    And gun-toting Buddhists? An oxymoron if ever there was one.

  257. mrsomuch says:

    #17 RUGGERREDHAWK – I like the idea of guns, I used to shoot a rifle on a range and love the technical skill and the physics of the whole thing, I think it’s unbelievably elegant. I just don’t like a culture that is flooded with guns and repeatedly shown to be immature in the approach and use of them (and I’m not singling out the US here). They are mostly designed for one thing, which I would rather see 100% less of thank you very much. Marksmanship FTW.

    #20 101 – I said *such* a gun culture, I am perfectly aware that we have a burgeoning gun culture here, it is very different tho to the good ol’ US of A.

  258. noen says:

    I don’t know why people are feeding the NRA nutcase troll. It isn’t like it’s possible to have an intelligent debate with him. That should be obvious by now. Now…. where is that greasemonkey script?

  259. mujadaddy says:

    #126 posted by minimalniemand , February 4, 2008 2:23 PM

    Ok, some of you ppl say, “guns are just tools” “used for recreation” and so on.
    Now, tomorrow I’ll start building a machine, that slowly rips off the skin off people and then ripples salt on the skinned body, while chemicals ensure that the person on this machine is conscious all the time.

    …ok, so you’re going for a CIA-genius grant, so what?

  260. Patrick Dodds says:

    In my defence, the quote from the Dalai Lama wasn’t posted before I composed. Interesting. Perhaps I need to rethink that bit.

  261. Kickyfast says:

    @jlbraun

    “Exactly. I accept the responsibility, karmically and spiritually. If someone dies as a result of my defense, then I will feel bad and we will both share the responsibility for his death. If he does not die, I will summon aid for him. I doubt he would do the same for me.”

    Isn’t the point of spiritually-justified religious laws to provide enough negative incentives to prevent people from doing “bad” things in the first place? Is Karma just a toll to pay in return for performing actions in contravention to Buddhist values?

  262. subtlesquid says:

    I agree with NOEN,people who dissagree with me are unintelligent trolls. Since they are so obviously wrong about one issue they couldn’t possibly ever have valid things to say about future issues. I’m going to plug my ears with greasemonkey and hum loudly to myself.

  263. Takuan says:

    Consider North Korea. Ordinary people have no guns, starve and die at a dictators whim and the whips in their heads keep them from rising up.

    Then there is Japan. Ordinary people have no guns and routinely kick the governments ass at the polls and lead happy, full and free lives .

    England ditto. Canada almost the same. Switzerland, an assault rifle in every closet and no gun crime to speak of.

    So what is the problem with America?

  264. Antinous says:

    Laugh, little people. He’s armed and hungry. After the apocalypse, you may be his dinner.

  265. jlbraun says:

    “rmng nslf n th fc f plc frc tht rfss t d t’s jb my sm lk rtnl rspns, spps t s, bt t s ls n stp wy frm th rl f wr lrds nd strngmn.”

    Dd y knw tht n twn n th S hd pd plc frc f ny knd bfr 1838? Hrdly “rl by strngmn”.

    “ll cn tll y s tht mtnl ttchmnts t lvng hmn bngs s fr bttr thn ny lv y my fl fr gn. gss t’s jst qstn f wht y chs t vl.”

    http://n.wkpd.rg/wk/Fls_dlmm

    W tnd t wnt t prtct ths w vl. wmn wh wldn’t thrws tch gn wll s n wllngly f hr chld s thrtnd.

    ” thnk y hv blt prsn fr yrslf wth brs f fr. t ny tm y wsh, y cn wlk t f tht cll nd stnd n th snlght wth ppl wh chs nt t lv n fr. W’ll b wtng. N n cn frc y.”

    http://n.wkpd.rg/wk/Fls_dlmm
    http://n.wkpd.rg/wk/Nrvn_fllcy
    http://n.wkpd.rg/wk/Prfct_sltn_fllcy
    http://n.wkpd.rg/wk/ppl_t_mtn

    Nt t mntn th ttr cndscnsn nd mndcs mpthy tht zs frm mst f yr psts.

  266. gandalf23 says:

    #234 posted by Takuan

    I guess some people just aren’t as strong as me. Pay attention and I’ll teach you how to live without fear to the point of not needing a gun.

    Oh Great and Wonderous Takun, please teach me to be strong and unafraid so that I may cast off mine spare tire, mine cables of jumping, mine kit of first aid, the candles of power-outage lighting, the extra food in the pantry also for power outages and/or times of great and terrible storms or ice and/or wind. I’d also like to become strong enough to not have an eye glasses repair kit in my home and truck. I’d really like to be strong enough to not have to carry around a leatherman tool for those times when I need a screwdriver. I assume once I’m strong enough I’ll be able to screw down screws using just my fingers. Also I’d like to be strong enough to not have car insurance or house insurance, heck, no insurance at all, because clearly with only enough strength and fearlessness I will become invulnerable and unable to be harmed and neither will my property be harmed.

    :)

  267. gandalf23 says:

    As I stated: no baggage attached, can you put your gun away for a few days?

    Do it all the time. Everytime I go into a National Park for backpacking and/or camping. When I visit Washington DC. Everytime I travel abroad or for business. Those are all multi-day/week/month trips. I didn’t have a CHL until bout a two years ago. Prior to that I hardly ever carried a pistol anywhere.

    Closer to home most Sundays I don’t carry because my suit was tailored and fits me awesome, but does not leave room for my pistol. Also, I’d have to wear my jacket all the time, and that bites in Texas pretty much year round. Too hot.

    Went to court the other day, had to disarm first. That really bites because my pants and belt have all stretched out a bit and when I don’t carry my pants keep slipping down. It’s one of those things that people don’t tell you about before you start carrying. I also had to change how I peed from unbuckle the belt, unbutton pants, unzip, to leave the belt buckled, leave the pants buttoned, and just unzip. Over a year and it still feels weird to pee that way. That’s another thing they don’t talk about. :)

    I contend the absence of the gun will not be negative.

    You are most likely right. No matter how you want to look at it, by race, sex, location, economic class, lifestyle, whatever, I’m not very likely to be the victim of violence (except when I’m in some of the places I go on business, but that’s a different matter so we’ll ignore that).

    But.

    I might be.

    And as long as I’m responsible about my gun ownership, why not let me carry that four pound hunk of steel around, concealed so you don’t even know it’s there, if I want to, just in case? What harm does it do?

    I think I mentioned here in another thread how I’d just recently had my first flat tire in 20 years or so of driving. I’ve stopped an help a bunch of people to change their tires, but never had a flat myself. I suppose I could’ve saved a lot of money by not every carrying a spare tire with me for at least 19 of those years. Would’ve had more room in the trunk. Would’ve gotten slightly better gas mileage. All kinds of benefits. But I think we all agree that it’s a Good Idea to carry a spare tire. Even though you can call a tow truck, or AAA and they’ll come put a tire on for you. Or the Highway Department guys that do the same thing for stranded motorists. After all, it’s their job, so obviously they are more professional at tire changing, right? Or I suppose you could depend on the kindness of strangers to lend you their spare tire. Me? I’ll just keep carrying one. Just to be sure.

  268. jlbraun says:

    Shooting for taking someone’s property is, of course, wrong. Shooting someone for stalking is, of course, wrong.

    If someone breaks in, they can have my laptop. I will however hold the front sights on them as they leave in case they want my life instead of the TV. If a gun or a knife or deadly force is ever used to threaten me in the course of a robbery or a break in or stalking, they have indicated that they do not respect their own life enough to know what it is worth. I will respect their views by shooting them to the ground.

  269. Songe says:

    Kickyfast – Karma isn’t a law dictated by a religion, it is a phenomena we are all subject to that is described in certain religions. I encourage you to read about Karma, because a lot of people have a pretty clear and pretty wrong idea about what it is.

  270. elNico says:

    #167 remmelt

    I’ve never really understood the “we can overthrow our unconstitutional government” thing. That was written in another age, people. This will never, EVER, happen. I dare you say it’s not true. Nothing will ever get the “militia” out of their homes, off their couches, away from the TV.

    Yeah, I don’t know what a government in the US would have to do to actually trigger this “can-do reaction of righting wrongs”. The NRA crowd seems to be quite happy to get done by a donkey.

    It’s sort-of cute, though…the whole grand myth thing…like a Western made in Italy.

  271. beergood says:

    When it comes to the topic gun control I see a lot of gray areas. I would say that I definitely lean towards keeping guns legal, but I can understand a reasonable person thinking otherwise. I am disturbed by people that spout rhetoric and specious reasoning on both sides of the debate.

    My question about the potato canon wasn’t meant to sound flippant, I was just curious where some people see the lines. I am sure I could make something that could hurl a projectile with sufficient force to kill someone, even if that wasn’t the intention of the device. So, if we make guns illegal, when does something become a ‘gun’ by definition. Does it have to be mass manufactured, or is it size? Is it the ordinance, or the means of propulsion?

    Takuan’s comment about banning potato guns when they kill as many people as hand guns seems flawed to me because then it just becomes about numbers. And the numbers, while being important, aren’t the root of the issue for me. With that logic, you can break down handguns into subcategories. Most gun killings are committed by handguns, so the solution is to ban handguns. But wait, further examination of the numbers shows that revolvers are rarely used for this purpose, so we should just ban semi-automatic handguns. Well, very few semi-automatic killings were performed by sig-saurs, most were by berretas and glocs, so really we only need to ban those models since they are responsible for the lion’s share of killings. With some simple data manipulation it is pretty easy to move up and down the ladder of what constitutes a gun that is dangerous to society. Yes, a gloc 9 is way more likely to be used in a convenience store robbery than a flint lock musket, but they are both data points on the same graph. But I do recognize the need to establish boundaries.

    And I am not saying we don’t already draw these lines elsewhere in our society. I can walk around with a pocket knife, but I would definitely run into trouble if I tried to wear a sword to the grocery store.

  272. Takuan says:

    “No, I live in the United States, where it is codified in law that cops don’t have the obligation to protect me at all. We all are “the civil authority”. And my town has a very low crime rate thanks to that.”

    The police don’t have to protect you? I find that hard to accept. Any policemen wish to comment?

    Now you say you have a low crime rate where you live. Why do you still need a gun then? The criminals won’t know you left it at home,right?

    How many times have you had to face down an armed home invasion?

  273. Songe says:

    As a buddhist and as someone who supports guns, I have to disagree a bit with jlbraun. Buddhism is compatable with self defense, but it should be noted that as a buddhist you should really avoid killing people, and you should your self defense as an opportunity to show mercy and compassion towards your attacker.

    Also, I think that the ability of any non-liberated beings such as us to understand the complex hand of karma in our lives to be able to make statements such as ‘the intention to cause harm is weak, so the karmic effect of the act is less’. Our perceptions are influenced by karma, so it naturally follows that our beliefs are, too. A seemingly unimportant act, and I don’t think harming another in defense of yourself can even be considered unimportant, can have enormous consequences that you aren’t aware of. My understanding of Karma is that it is invisible and inconceivable until you are liberated from it.

    I believe buddha nature is in all things, and although I would be inclined to defend myself if someone attacked me, I would like to imagine that I would have the wisdom to see that both I and my attacker are the same (ie, the buddha is attacking me, Avaloketishwara is giving me the 1000sand armed smack down), and an attitude of harmlessness would probably sew fewer karmic seeds in both of us than in righteous self defense. As long as we have to die and confront this crap later, why not behave properly now?

    What the dalai lama calls “reasonable” is not necessarily the best course of action. It’s not like you could be killed anyway, and if you did allow someone to take your life, that’s got to help you snag a pretty good reincarnation. Bardic brownie points.

  274. Spacechip says:

    I am also a flaming liberal, however, not being Buddhist or vegetarian or anything, I’m not even opposed to hunting. I think it’s unfair to lump this guy in with folks who use guns irresponsibly. I find myself wondering if our ‘gun culture’ were more pervasive, rather than the current state of things where some folks are totally enamored with them and others who vilify the first group, might the general level of responsible handling be higher?

    It’s a tough call. On one hand I hate the idea that guns enable someone to kill in an instant without making physical contact, i.e without fully understanding the weight of their action. But then the point of the right to bear arms is for the general populace to be able to protect themselves from oppression, and firearms kind of provide a necessary leveling of the playing field in that regard.

    Another thought: while I’m generally opposed to prohibition in favor of dealing with the root causes of societal problems like violence, todays story involving the 15 year old MD kid gives me pause.

    And yes I know I’m probably contradicting myself.

  275. Kickyfast says:

    @-119

    Agreed!

  276. Ari B. says:

    @38

    You’ve got happy slapping, a bit of idiocy that, AFAIK, hasn’t yet made its way to the US.

  277. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    An armed society is a society that’s polite to heavily-armed individuals who have fast reflexes, the money to fight court cases, and a friendly relationship with law enforcement personnel.

    I’m not sure I can even begin to argue with the idea that we have two ways of dealing with each other (reason and force), and that in that schema, guns come next in the list of subjects to discuss. We live in a complex and highly cooperative system of distributed force and distributed reason, not a 16-bit-color shoot-’em-up where the only other character is part of the game.

    Klokwerk (154), stow the cliches about social liberals, okay? Carrying on like that just makes you sound like you’re feeling sorry for yourself.

    Anthony (169), I’d rather pay attention to the correlation between revenge fantasies and our consistent failure to protect students from bullying.

  278. Moon says:

    @#180,

    Do you know why those stories make the news? Because they are unusual. Dog bites man, not news. Man bites dog, news. It’s rare.

    And you failed to note the NEXT story on that web site:

    Grocer killed with own gun

    Lorain grocer Jose Gonzalez was fatally shot with his own gun during a struggle with the suspect in a ”botched robbery” at Gonzalez’s store last Friday, police said.

    Gonzales had bought the gun to protect himself and his store following a previous holdup, according to neighbors.

    Police said a man armed with a weapon that was not a gun walked into the Gonzalez Grocery at 2522 Lexington Ave. at about 10 a.m. on Jan. 25. A fight ensued between the man and Gonzalez, and Gonzalez’s gun somehow got into the hands of the intruder, according to police.

    Lorain police Chief Cel Rivera would not specify what weapon police believe suspect Decio Rodrigues, 24, of Lorain, brought to the store, but said it was not a gun. The chief said he does not believe Rodrigues entered the store with the intent to kill Gonzalez.

    As the suspect ran from the store with cash in his hand, he was spotted by an Allied Waste worker.

    Police released a composite sketch of the suspect shortly after the killing and tips started rolling in.

    Lorain detectives worked around the clock with the U.S. Marshal’s Violent Fugitive Task Force to capture Rodrigues. He was taken into custody Saturday night and was charged with aggravated murder.

    At an arraignment Monday morning, Rodrigues appeared on live video from the Lorain County Jail. Rodrigues kept his head down for most of the proceeding, but when he did look into the camera, he had a black eye and scratches on his face.

    Rivera said the injuries were from the struggle that had taken place at the grocery store when Gonzalez was fighting for his life.

    Tuesday night, the community gathered with Gonzalez’s family to honor his legacy and to protest violence. His son vowed to reopen the store.

    Which happens about as frequently as the robber being stopped, I would guess. And probably less often than some kid getting ahold of his Daddy’s gun and shooting the whole family.

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/howard/bal-te.md.browning05feb05,0,7680687.story

  279. jlbraun says:

    @Pat Dodds:

    Google “subsitution effect”. There is no indication that a significant number of people killed with a gun would still be alive if guns were banned. (note that I did not say “if guns were nonexistent”. Criminals don’t obey gun laws.) You’re attempting a proof by induction.

    Secondly, you have to look at overall violent crime rates, not just gun violence. Of course there was no gun violence in the Roman Empire, but that did not make it any less violent overall.

    It’s also interesting to note that robberies, assaults, burglaries, and total crimes are actually higher per capita in the United Kingdom. Gun crime in the UK is skyrocketing as well. Though murder rates in the UK are still lower than the US, the US is on a 20 year decline whiles the UK’s violent crime rate is going up. Perception of safety is also lower in the UK.

    It’s the culture. I detest guns being shown on TV in the hands of criminals and thugs, because that promotes an ignorance and callousness towards guns in general.

  280. ifyoucanreadthis says:

    Yeah, but he’s 18 times more likely to be a big fat target in 0 seconds.

  281. gandalf23 says:

    #237 posted by elNico

    Anyway, what you’re saying is because Blacks were second-class citizens and denied most rights, including buying a gun, the fact that they now can makes taking away the right to buy a gun racist??

    No, I don’t think I said that. If I did, it’s not what I meant at all.

    What I meant was that, at least up until 1968, the gun control laws have been racist as they were designed to keep guns out of the hands of black people. In addition to not allowing gun sales through the mail, the 1968 Gun Control Act was also what got rid of “Saturday Night Specials.” Look at the literature of the time, until they started talking about the bill in Congress, those same guns we called…anyone? …Nigger Guns. Because they were cheap (both in price and quality) and most anyone, even a poor black man, could afford them. So they cut them off from being imported to the states. They introduced the “sporting” rule, that said guns coming in must be “sporting” and then defined what was and was not sporting. And pistols with little or no sights and short barrels are not considered sporting. Oddly, adjustable sights are sporting, so now you see small pistols, they just have adjustable sights. So the whole “sporting” thing was just a way to get around selling guns to blacks, because they bought guns for protection from The Man, not to play games. But I’m digressing.

    What I meant was that well…let’s look at this from another angle. It’s bigoted to be against gay marriage, right? And the proper way to fix the problem is not to ban all marriage, it’s to enable gays to marry, right? So looking at it from that angle, why would we ban guns from everyone, instead of just repealing the racist laws?

    And the laws are still racist.

    It’s still difficult for a black man to buy a gun in some places, legally. ‘Cause Earl down at the Gun Shack don’t want to sell to none of them folk. Just like he don’t sell to no flaming homo-sexiculs. (And Earl probably thinks it’s funny to sell a young lady a huge .357 and a box of super hot ammo when she comes in asking for a gun and the one time she fires it it’s going to hurt like hell and scare the bejezus outta her and she’ll never shot it again. ‘Cause Earl’s an asshole, and as we all know, there are assholes in every walk of life. But I’m digressing, again)

    I’ve been to a lot of gun shows. And a lot of gun stores. And many gun ranges. Very rarely do I see a black man at any of them. I do see Hispanic men at them, so I don’t think it’s racism on the part of the shows, stores or ranges, but possibly a remembered racism “Oh don’t go there, they won’t sell to you.” even though they would, now. But I don’t know, maybe the local stores and shows and ranges are racist against blacks but not Hispanics.

    Or maybe it’s the price of new guns that are keeping impoverished blacks (and others) from them. A new Glock is going to run at least $500, a new Smith & Wesson revolver will run about that. A “cheap” Remington shotgun runs about $250 at Walmart, so firearms may just be priced out of reach of poor folks.

    #237 posted by elNico

    The picture that you and your pseudo-Buddhist compadre paint here repeatedly is one of a society that is so drenched with guns that it is indeed dangerous to leave home without one

    I certainly don’t feel that way. And I’m sorry if my posts gave off that impression. Look, I carry a pistol for the same reason I carry a spare tire. In case something happens, and I need it, it’s there.

    I don’t wake up in the morning thinking “Wow! I really hope I can change my tire today! Ohhh…I got a shiny new lug wrench the other day, hope i can use it!” Nor do I worry about road debris or vicious packs of roaming eco-terrorists out to slash my truck’s tires (even though someone did go up my parent’s street and slash the tires on every truck, suv, or gas guzzler, leaving the compact cars and mpg friendly ones untouched).

    I also keep jumper cables in my truck. Mainly for if someone else needs a jump. I keep a first aid kit in there, too, because sometimes injuries happen, and it’s nice to have some basic supplies when they do. But I’m not terrified of some injury happening and my first aid kit is the only thing that’ll save me. Neither do I dream of driving up on some great catastrophe and only my first aid kit saves the day. I just carry all that stuff in case I need it. I keep a shovel in the back in case I get stuck in the mud, again.

    I also keep a small tool box and a spare serpentine belt and I can guarandamntee you I hope to never have to put another serpentine belt on my damn truck. Holy crap that’s hard to do with no one helping. But just this past Sunday my belt broke while I was going down the road. But I was able to replace it because I had the tools and a spare belt (and an extra change of clothes which was great because I didn’t have to ruin my nice suit digging around in the engine).

    I guess it’s just hard coded in me that having the neccessary tools and whatnot available to take care of problems myself is a Good Thing. Maybe it’s from my time in Boy Scouts. Our motto was Be Prepared. Or maybe it was just that my dad carried around similar tools and stuff, and he was able to fix most things in his workshop, so I kinda grew up thinking that way. Dunno.

    Maybe that’s just it. I’m familliar with firearms so I’m comfortable around them and don’t see them as dangerous rabid dogs, straining at their leash to go out and kill. Maybe y’all just need to be introduced to them, safely, so you don’t just get your info on them from movies and tv. Kinda like us homophobes (former, in my case) shouldn’t be all homophobic based on what we see on tv or movies, right? Get to know some gay people and you discover they’re just people. Get exposed to firearms and I think you’ll find they’re just a tool like any other tool. Then you’ll be less hoplophobic.

    So…if any of y’all are in North Texas, or are coming this way or passing through and would like to, I’d be happy to take you out shooting. It’ll be with .22s, rifles and pistols. Maybe a cowboy type six-shooter in 44-40 and a lever action rifle, ’cause they’re real fun and don’t kick too bad. If there’s something specific you want to try, let me know, maybe I have it or can borrow it.

  282. Kickyfast says:

    @-137

    Give me physical proof of it and I’ll accept it as a “phenomena.”

    Today was supposed to be HOMEWORK day! Kickyfast, over and out.

  283. jlbraun says:

    @anti-whatever

    “You’ve made thirty lengthy comments on this thread. You’ve only ever made one other comment on BB, and it’s a pro-gun comment. I call troll.”

    So? At least some people were educated, instead of having to listen to only one side of the debate. I would note that the tone of the discussion became notably more educational and civil after I and a few other pro-gun people became involved.

    #234

    “I guess some people just aren’t as strong as me. Pay attention and I’ll teach you how to live without fear to the point of not needing a gun.”

    How conceited and close-minded. Why are you being so intolerant of others?

    #238

    Takuan, methinks that you need to rethink your position too. Namaste.

    And I’ll repeat the question, because no one seems to have an answer:

    “Looking at the historical record, can you name a time and place that restricting law abiding citizen’s access to hand held weapons (since guns have only been around a few hundred years) has made them safer?”

  284. beergood says:

    @192 Takuan

    This post echos my thought.

    Teen pregnancy isn’t a problem because of teens genitals, nor is the drug problem the fault of drugs. It is a systemic societal problem.

    I am bummed out about gun violence not so much about the guns as I am about the desire we have to kill each other. By focusing on guns, which is pee already in the pool, we are diverting energy from identifying and solving the actual reasons.

    America is unique (well, almost all countries are unique, except Australia and New Zealand, they are just living a lie). We are young, big, insanely rich and powerful. We have some incredibly high standards of living, and we also still segregate our minorities and trample their rights while patting ourselves on the back for how far we’ve come. We try to extend our freedom to other countries (sometimes with force, but other times with true generosity), but we still can’t agree on a set of basic human rights that we extend to our own citizenry. We all want to make the world a better place, but some of us think that it should be okay to shoot a guy for crossing our border.

    What scares me more than guns are the people that either think we are doing just fine as we are, and the people that think a bulk of good can be done by the simple banning of a device.

    However, I do understand how someone can see banning guns as a step on the road to recovery. I just happen to disagree with them.

  285. brian rutherford says:

    Enough already.

  286. Takuan says:

    “because then it just becomes about numbers. And the numbers, while being important, aren’t the root of the issue ”

    as far as the practical running of a society goes, numbers ARE the issue. Abstract arguments about the inherent rights of every free person are more popular, but when you are the head man of the village you can bet that you are counting just how many of the young men speared each other while drunk when they should have been out hunting to feed everybody. The numbers count. Too many gun deaths. Far too many. It’s messing up everything else.

  287. jgodsey says:

    can i join the club and say, that his finger has probably had all the exercise.

  288. jlbraun says:

    @songe

    “and you should your self defense as an opportunity to show mercy and compassion towards your attacker.”

    Exactly. Buddhism is against *violence* in self-defense, but is OK with *force*. This is why one never shoots to *kill* an attacker, one shoots to *stop* an attacker. Regrettably, the fastest way to stop an attacker is by shooting them center mass and perhaps killing them, but if they cease their attack after being shot, we do not kill a defenseless person.

    Secondly, has the attacker not caused his own pain and possible death by attacking? I would not shoot a random person if it wasn’t in defense. Has the attacker not killed *himself*?

  289. Dan says:

    that’s awesome. he looks like a Dick Tracy villain.

  290. thamesman says:

    Having watched and enjoyed this debate evolve over the last few hours, I suddenly had the urge to watch the video again.. It’s a lot funnier after reading the above 139 posts..
    I particularly like how he closes his eyes after the first shot.. somewhere off camera (near the barrel of corn syrup) is his glamorous assistant looking very surprised at still being alive, tied to a slowly spinning wheel, surrounded by recently shot balloons..

    And to add a final touch – Blazing Saddles has just started on TV..

  291. jlbraun says:

    Wht mks y thnk thr’s nly n jlbrn rthr thn cltn f thm? :)

    Dn’t strn yr lbws pttng yrslvs n th bck t hrd. BB ndd sht f smthng t cmbt th snctmny.

  292. Songe says:

    I would rather not get shot, but at the same time, it’s not all about me, you know? Anybody with me?

  293. jlbraun says:

    “I find myself wondering if our ‘gun culture’ were more pervasive, rather than the current state of things where some folks are totally enamored with them and others who vilify the first group, might the general level of responsible handling be higher?”

    I do as well. Smallbore rifle used to be an option in gym class, now it’s not because guns r teh evul.

    The West Virginia state legislature is working on a bill to require that gun handling be taught in public schools, which I’m in favor of.

  294. Moon says:

    Gandalf #202, Maybe it’s because they can import guns from Florida or Georgia, etc.

    If guns were banned ACROSS the U.S., it might reduce the murder rate in total. You see, guns are banned in Chicago and Cook County, but you can go out to the suburbs and buy all you want.

    It might be difficult to buy guns if you had to import them from outside the U.S., especially with the Homeland Security types not even allowing you to carry liquids on airplanes.

  295. Takuan says:

    Only if you’ve a head the size of a planet.

    Agreed, he probably is bump-firing, a modern day “fanning the hammer”. Only easy for him because of his mass. Utterly inaccurate but it will keep heads down and hit by sheer statistical chance.

    There are full auto pistols out there

    Re: gun control: Of course gun control already exists everywhere. It is a question of how much.
    Re: the American “constitutional” argument: nonsense, anyone who can read English knows the intent was never what exists now in terms of guns everywhere.

    No one “needs” a gun.

  296. Takuan says:

    OK, how about a handgun ban? OK to own rifles and shotguns for target and hunting but no pistols.
    People can still kill the government stooges when they come to their homes, still hunt and target shoot sand have sexual relations with their favorite firearm – but no handguns. Mandatory life sentences in prisons set up to break and destroy men with no intent of rehabilitation (The Devils Island model) for any who use handguns in committing a crime.

    You understand of course they will find your corpse with a kiwi in its mouth sometime soon now.

  297. Antinous says:

    Why not just let me have my guns, and if I use them in an illegal manner, like say shooting someone when non in a self defense or defense of others situation, then take them away and lock me up in jail?

    That would be locking the barn door after the cow’s head has already been blown off. The notion, as I understand it, is to prevent unnecessary death and maiming rather than to let it happen and then punish the perpetrator.

  298. geopet says:

    @#41 Antinous: Or he could be mine.

  299. Patrick Dodds says:

    @ 194 Teresa Hayden Nielson: Klokwerk at 154 doesn’t make his argument as eloquently there as he does at 158 but he does have a valid point, don’t you think? (Sorry Klokwerk if you are reading, I imagine you can fight your own corner. By the way, odd thing to do, bring in that gay marriage stuff).

    Teresa, I like:

    “I’m not sure I can even begin to argue with the idea that we have two ways of dealing with each other (reason and force), and that in that schema, guns come next in the list of subjects to discuss. We live in a complex and highly cooperative system of distributed force and distributed reason, not a 16-bit-color shoot-’em-up where the only other character is part of the game.”

    I’m interested though, are you commenting as a moderator or as just plain THN? Maybe you can do both? Genuine question.

  300. bruenor says:

    “There are already public safety rules governing all these. What 75 dead children indicates to me is that the rules on guns are 75 times poorer than they should be. If children are dying from the other causes you mention, you can rest assured people are trying their best to do something about it.”

    Meanwhile 766 people died from Bicycle accidents in 2006.. http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

    It’s thoughts like those that are why Jarts are illegal. I mean come on it’s a lawn dart game. Just because your kid has no common sense doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be able to play the game. Without games like Jarts how are we supposed to thin out the weak links in the gene pool ?

    “The next point I would like to bring up is that unlike a club or a knife, guns are really easy to use. ”
    You can’t use a club or a knife ? wasn’t the club like the first tool used by the caveman ? A gun is far more complex to use than a club or a knife.. Many people can’t figure out how to load a gun, until they are shown, but they could certainly swing a club and know which end of a knife is the dangerous pointy end..

    Amazing how people are under the impression that anyone carrying a gun is going to whip it out at the smallest provocation and start shooting like it’s the wild west. Being a concealed Carry permit holder doesn’t make you immune to the laws, or give you the right to just gun people down. I think you anti-gunners should go take a concealed carry course to learn the laws in relation to carrying a firearm, I think you would find it rather enlightening.

    Our CCW instructor did not collect the tuition fee till the second day, giving people the opportunity to leave the course without paying if they didn’t agree with what they heard. We had several leave, because they felt the laws were so restricting what was the point of even carrying ?

    At least taking part in programs like the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) is far more rewarding, than sitting around arguing with people on the internet.. http://www.odcmp.com/about_us.htm

  301. jlbraun says:

    @takuan

    “No one “needs” a gun.”

    Or a computer. Or the Internet. Or a car. Or a cell phone. Or…

    Should we prohibit these things too? You can do harm with these things too, and quite easily at that.

    “the American “constitutional” argument: nonsense, anyone who can read English knows the intent was never what exists now in terms of guns everywhere.”

    Wrong.

    “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
    — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
    Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

    There’s loads more. Anyone who reads the Constitution and thinks that it was meant to disarm rather than protect a right to be armed is wrong.

    And remember, if you say that “well, the 2nd is an anachronism and doesn’t apply today” then you open the door for those like Bushie to say “well, the 4th, 1st, and 5th are anachronisms since 9-11 changed everything.”

  302. Stephen Ockham says:

    “Gun control is fundamentally a bigoted, racist, sexist, ageist, statist idea that is *so* 20th century. Get with the program.”

    I haven’t laughed so hard in a week. Did anybody unpack this yet?

    Frankly, I support the idea of building a wall around the “Jesusland” portion of the country (after uninstalling all the instruments of ‘mass foreign policy’ and their silos) and letting them do whatever they want for as long as they can.

    Meanwhile the rest of western civilization can bring the “United States of Canada” portion of the country back up to speed.

  303. BobbyMike says:

    It appears to be a Stechkin compact machine Pistol, which is basically uncontrollable even with it’s detachable shoulder stock.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stechkin_APS

  304. Antinous says:

    …as a buddhist you should really avoid killing people…

    Yeah. If you’re already fantasizing about defending yourself, you’ve got a big problem. Violence is a failure. Sometimes we fail, but it’s better to do everything humanly possible to avoid it.

  305. beergood says:

    #197 posted by Takuan

    First of all let me state that I am enjoying this back and forth.

    My problem with this argument is that your village example consists of one man’s unilateral decision based upon his interpretation of the numbers. Which is a system that has been shown to break down over time. A society as large as ours (and as free as we would like to think we are) requires us to achieve a consensus. To do that we have to persuade others to think like we do. Most often we try to do that with numbers (which are important, as I stated), but in a complex system numbers can almost always be twisted and presented to support whatever our beliefs are. That is because as a creature we don’t think in numbers, we think in ideas (the abstract arguments you mentioned). Numbers are something we use to scale things, but not to understand concepts. So, my question about where you stand on the concept of guns and rights was about abstracts, but that is because abstracts will help me understand your point of view a lot better than a cut and dried, here are the numbers explanation.

    I apologize if I am beating this into the ground.

  306. beergood says:

    It is poor science to look at a complex system with a ton of variables (let alone compare two such systems) and single out one variable as the cause of a complex effect. It is hard enough to compare two cultures in terms of generalities, but to then try to pinpoint one specific point were the two diverge is almost impossible.

    Do Americans kill a lot of each other?
    Yes.

    Are guns used in a lot of those killings?
    Yes.

    But that isn’t nearly enough to create a complete causation. There are most likely deeper reasons why we kill each other. Maybe we have more guns than most other countries (per capita) because a lot of us just want to kill each other? That is about as reasonable an assumption based upon the facts.

    Trying to control a problem that is poorly understood is a very difficult thing to do, especially when passions overtake rationality (on either side). The same thing is happening with our drug culture (a culture that I sometimes enjoy, by the way). We’ve made most drugs illegal, and done are best to forcefully deter drug use, but it still remains a ‘problem’.

    I guess what I am saying is that I think blaming murder on guns is like blaming obesity on silverware. Perhaps it is easier to find evil/illness in an object than to admit it comes from us.

    As for Gun-Toting-Buddhists, as far as I know Buddhists have a long tradition of discipline and defense. Guns are nothing more than a logical progression. I think I would feel a little more comfortable with a Buddhist having a gun than someone of a more reactionary faith (not trying to point any fingers here).

  307. Javier Candeira says:

    @47: and one drawn by Kyle Baker at that.

  308. Clifton says:

    Moon, it’s good to know then that Mexico must have no problems with gun violence, since they have strict gun control throughout the whole country. It’s a pity though how everyone who lives there is hallucinating a huge problem with rampant shootings by drug gangs.

    Alternatively, maybe passing laws against something doesn’t magically make it vanish. You think?

    Consider carefully Takuan’s note @ 192. There are societies with near-universal gun ownership and very low homicide rates, and societies with near-universal gun ownership and high homicide rates, and societies with almost no gun ownership and very low homicide rates, and societies with almost no gun ownership and high homicide rates.

    Why do Americans kill each other in such astoundingly greater numbers than Canadians, Norwegians, or Swiss, when guns are quite accessible in those countries? I think it’s necessary to look more to cultural differences as to where the problem lies.

  309. mrsomuch says:

    This is why I love Boing Boing! where else could you go from Fat guy with gun, to Buddhist self defence, to happy slapping? truly awe inspiring.

  310. sweep says:

    @ JLBRAUN

    “This means that given a society of armed men, the nicest, most forgiving, non-envious will tend to win. Criminals, while they get short-term gain by repeatedly defecting from the social contract, are eventually eliminated via retaliation. If gun control removes the ability to retaliate from some members, repeated defectors win. If you attempt to force the “always cooperate” on everyone, that works until *just one person* gains the ability to use force and defect, and she wins everything.”

    Uhm, no….for the Tit for Tat strategy to work as you suggest, each player would require a perfect knowledge of who has been nice or nasty. This is clearly not the case with criminals in a real society. In Game Theory models where there is not perfect knowledge, arise more complex and selfish strategies than you are suggesting. Most criminals take pains to not advertise their identities to their victims. I also hope that it is not your intention to imply that we should “eliminate” all criminals?

    To be honest I find your post, and your reasoning a bit weird.

Leave a Reply