Why do you own a gun? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

emigre80

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223

Posted: June 22 2016 at 09:13

The T wrote:

A Person wrote:

[QUOTE=emigre80]I know that there are people that like to hunt, and call it sport.

Unless it's for food or for another purpose (like preserving other species), I call it murder of living beings.

Well, after all we're the same species that has a lot of people calling bullfighting an "art" .

I can see hunting for food. It's the enjoyment of hunting - get that, enjoying killing something that's alive - that I don't get.

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: June 22 2016 at 08:59

emigre80 wrote:

I know that there are people that like to hunt, and call it sport.

Unless it's for food or for another purpose (like preserving other species), I call it murder of living beings.

Well, after all we're the same species that has a lot of people calling bullfighting an "art" .

Edited by The T - June 22 2016 at 09:14

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: June 22 2016 at 04:38

TeleStrat wrote:

I'm not concerned about other countries in the world, I care about what happens in my country.

That's a shame, because I care about what happens in lots of countries I don't live in. I care about what happens in countries whose foreign policies affects other countries. I care about what happens in countries who want to be regarded as a world leader or world player in international affairs. I particularly care about countries that I have visited, may visit or will visit either on business or as a tourist. I especially care about what happens in the country that is not only the largest arms producer in the World, it also exports more arms than all the other countries in the World added together. I care about what happens in a country that wants to control the sale of arms throughout the World through restrictive practices and regulations but doesn't want to control the sale within its own borders.

TeleStrat wrote:

England has 65 million people and California alone has 39 million people. The Netherlands has 17 million people and Los Angeles County alone has over ten million people and that's not counting illegals.

There you go quoting inaccurate numbers that have no direct meaning or relationship to anything else.

The population of England is 53 million not 65 million, to reach 65 million you'd have to add in the population of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and 1 million other people (tourists?). But hey, it's only numbers so who's counting. But population alone means very little because the land area occupied by those populations is not comparable.

So, in terms of population density the UK has 679 people per square mile compared to California's 251 people per square mile ... both of which pale into insignificance compare to 1,056 people per square mile in The Netherlands - which coincidentally is more or less the same as England (pop 53 million, density 1,054/sq mi). Lovely numbers but still meaningless because the population isn't evenly distributed across the land area, much of California is pretty much uninhabitable and 47% of the UK is uninhabited whereas The Netherlands has had to reclaim land from the sea just to grow tulips (to be fair, we employed Dutch engineers to do the same thing in England).

Therefore if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty of urban conurbation, the population of Greater London (which is essentially the county of London) is 8.5 million, so 1.5 million less than LA County but its population density is five times greater than LA County. Again, lovely numbers that on their own don't mean a great deal.

So let's drill-down a little more: Los Angeles (city) has a population of 4 million compared to the City of London that has a population of 8,600... (yep, that's not a typo: approximately eight thousand six hundred people live in the City of London) - yet the actual population density of both cities is comparable because LA covers 469 square miles whereas the City of London is only 1 square mile. Once again, lovely numbers that don't mean much since the major criminal offence in the City of London is anti-social behaviour (which covers a variety of sins, including street drinking and littering - damn them City types with their quaffing of Pims and casual dropping of £5 notes on the floor).

Therefore let's compare regions of similar land-area - LA (city) vs Greater London - 4 million vs 8.5 million - 469 square miles vs 609 square miles - again Greater London is more populous and has a greater population density. LA deaths by firearms - 296 (in 2013) - Greater London deaths by firearms 29 (in 2014)

So it's not related to total population, or population density or city over-crowding.

TeleStrat wrote:

There is a major gang problem here and a major drug network here as well.

So... does London have a gang problem? Yep - half the teenage murders in London are gang-related. Is it as bad as LA? No one actually knows but its a safe bet that it isn't yet the UK Home Office employed a former LA Police Chief to advise them even though there is no comparison between LA gangs and the "post-code" gangs of London.

Does London have major drug networks? Yep. Is it as bad as LA? Who knows and I can't be arse to find out, let's say it isn't even though practically all organised crime in London (and everywhere else) is drug related.

Why? Is it because guns are harder to obtain even for gang-members and criminals in the UK?

TeleStrat wrote:

Our jails and prisons are so overcrowded that even felons get released early.

That isn't a uniquely American problem.

TeleStrat wrote:

These are some of the facts that I base my level of protection on.

No problem. You don't need to justify why you have a gun to me or anyone else. Owning a gun does not prevent any of those "facts" from occurring and it doesn't solve or alleviate any of the problems that cause them, if anything it can only make them worse as the criminals arm themselves for protection from those who arm themselves to protect themselves from the criminals...

30,000 people will die in the USA this year with or without gun control because it takes years for gun control to take effect. It isn't a quick-fix. I seriously doubt you will ever achieve same percentage of gun-related deaths as the UK (which would reduce that 30,000 to just 750) but reducing it by a factor of 10 to 3,000 would be a remarkable achievement.

TeleStrat wrote:

I wouldn't waste the time to try and change anyone's mind.

I don't think anyone ever their mind changed by an internet post. But that's never been the reason for posting an opinion.

TeleStrat wrote:

This thread is called "Why do you own a gun?" and that's what my posts are about.

Almost.

What?

TeleStrat

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 27 2014
Location: Norwalk, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 9319

Posted: June 22 2016 at 03:40

Okay, gun deaths/car deaths - What was your point? Too many guns in America? Too many bad drivers in America? Should we ban guns or cars or both? You tell me because you guys over there seem to have all the answers.

I'm sure you did an extensive search on guns/cars before posting. Did that search happen to say how many of those gun deaths were caused by criminals and how many were caused by law abiding gun owners?

We could compare the number of gun deaths per year to the number of tobacco related deaths in that same year. Or maybe to the number of legal abortions in that same year. Would that really get us anywhere?

I'm glad that your country has solved the gun problem and I'm glad that your criminals are so well mannered but I don't live in your country.

And yes, the number of existing laws does matter. It matters when you're dealing with gun hating liberals and lazy politicians who are demanding more laws that will not stop criminals and only further restrict citizens from the ability to protect themselves.

By the way, who do you think are big supporters of gun control? The criminals are. They want to see every citizen stripped of their right to own a gun. Criminals in this country are more concerned about being shot by a civilian than by the police. This came from research done by two professors who were funded by a government grant, not by the gun lobby or the NRA.

Speaking of criminals, I did not appreciate your "Damn them criminals and their utter disregard for the law" sarcastic comment. Your criminals may not use guns but ours do and they kill innocent civilians every day.

If you had bothered to Google the gun application form like I suggested earlier you would see that there is a question regarding domestic violence (and yet another sarcastic joke in italics). A "no" answer to this question will prevent the purchase of a gun.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: June 22 2016 at 01:20

TeleStrat wrote:

I've read some of the gun deaths/injuries compared to car deaths/injuries and the numbers are just not accurate. You need to look a little closer and find out just how they came up with their findings.

Numbers are easy to manipulate if you already have an opinion and only look at results that support that opinion.

For example, look how easy it is to determine the number of unemployed in this country simply by counting only those who are actually collecting unemployment benefits while ignoring the millions of others who are out of work and not collecting benefits. Now, who would do something like that?

You will note that the first word in my flippant and sarcastic post was "Apparently".

HOWEVER.

That's irrelevant.

What difference does it make whether the number of gun deaths is slightly more or slightly less than the number of vehicular deaths? You can only manipulate statistics when the totals are significantly large enough so the devil can be lost in the detail. [when I was in California last year a motorist was shot in the head while driving on the freeway, which according to a google search seems to be a thing in your country - are they counted as a gun-deaths or a car deaths or both?]. The fact that the two stats are even remotely comparable at all is enough. Seriously it is. The only way these numbers should even remotely be comparable is if the USA has got the most amazing traffic safety record on the planet, which it hasn't (even on that score you're lagging behind Europe by an appreciable amount no matter how you count the numbers).

TeleStrat wrote:

When it comes to gun related statistics you have to consider law abiding citizens and criminals as being two separate groups. This is especially true when I hear people talking about the lack of gun control. You need to do a Google search and find out just how many gun laws are already on the books.

Unfortunately, these laws only mean something to law abiding citizens. They mean absolutely nothing to criminals.

Yeah, we have that here in the UK too. Damn them criminals and their utter disregard for the law.

We only have one gun control law here (which is the one you don't have) and it's called The Firearms Act, we amend it from time to time to ensure it's effective and does the job, but if you're pissing about manipulating statistics to prove a point then of course there are a number of others that deal with the sale, brokering, import, export and import & export (like there's a difference?) of weapons that don't affect the average citizen or criminal and have little or no bearing on anything being discussed here. It's not the number of laws you have that's important (or meaningful) but how effective they are - in the UK you will be refused a gun licence if there is a history, or perceived likelihood, of domestic violence - how would that pan out in the USA? An infringement of civil liberty? Unconstitutional? or Never bothered to ask? Sure buddy, have you considered the 9mm Glock 17, here's a brochure, have a nice day."...? Of course any correlation between domestic violence and guns is merely manipulating statistics isn't it...

But whaddya know... our citizens do not have guns, our regular policemen do not have guns and low and behold, most of our criminals do not have guns either... and guess what... ten times more people die in traffic accidents than are killed by gun shot. But maybe that's just one of those weird coincidences that come about when you start trying to prove anything with facts and statistics.

What?

TeleStrat

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 27 2014
Location: Norwalk, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 9319

Posted: June 21 2016 at 21:54

I'm not concerned about other countries in the world, I care about what happens in my country.

England has 65 million people and California alone has 39 million people. The Netherlands has 17 million people and Los Angeles County alone has over ten million people and that's not counting illegals.

There is a major gang problem here and a major drug network here as well.

Our jails and prisons are so overcrowded that even felons get released early.

These are some of the facts that I base my level of protection on.

I wouldn't waste the time to try and change anyone's mind.

This thread is called "Why do you own a gun?" and that's what my posts are about.

*frinspar* View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 27 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 463

Posted: June 21 2016 at 21:10

Meh, I drive an SUV because I'm tall and don't like getting in and out of short cars. Wink

Edited by *frinspar* - June 21 2016 at 21:10

Atavachron View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266

Posted: June 21 2016 at 20:41

Hey there are only a few of us left anyway -

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy

Polymorphia View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 06 2012
Location: here
Status: Offline
Points: 8856

Posted: June 21 2016 at 20:39

Atavachron wrote:

nor would I want to live in a perfect society.

I might not mind it. Just think about it: no more ELP fans.

My Music

Atavachron View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266

Posted: June 21 2016 at 20:37

Independence to a fault. No one has the perfect balance, nor would I want to live in a perfect society.

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy

emigre80

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223

Posted: June 21 2016 at 20:28

TeleStrat wrote:

How other people choose to (or not to) protect themselves and their home is entirely up to them and it is no one's business but theirs.

I did not argue that point. I said I couldn't do it. As long as the law allows it, then you can choose to do so.

However, there are many countries (I've lived in two of them) where people are not allowed to own guns, with only narrow exceptions, and I never heard anyone in England or the Netherlands obsessing about protecting themselves and their homes. It really is an American thing.

Even the terms we use have changed over the years. What we used to call "break-ins" are now "home invasions," which makes them sound scarier and therefore justifies more firearms purchases.

Just like we used to drive sedans, but now many people drive SUV's, because the size of them makes people feel safer, even if their decreased maneuverability and increased risk of rollover means they are actually less safe. I do think a lot of this is perception rather than reality - again, my opinion.

emigre80

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223

Posted: June 21 2016 at 20:24

A Person wrote:

emigre80 wrote:

I know that there are people that like to hunt, and call it sport. Again, I don't understand this. If you live somewhere with no access to purchased food, okay, but very few of us (and I imagine that no one on this site) is in that situation.

I could consider myself in that situation, but the lack of access to food has to do with money. The fish and venison my brother gets can be very useful to my family. I could never do it though.

I apologize if I was insensitive. Yes, affordability can also be an issue, but frankly I couldn't do it unless my family were actually starving. Then it might seem like the lesser of two evils. Glad I do not have to face that choice.

emigre80

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223

Posted: June 21 2016 at 20:22

TeleStrat wrote:

The one that is not in the safe is kept in a locked gun box on the top shelf of my closet. At night when I'm ready for bed I put the box on the dresser and unlock it. In the morning I do the reverse. That's how I did it years ago when I was responsible for protecting a family of five and that's how I do it now.

your choice and the law allows you to do so. I could not live like that, taking out a gun every night and putting it away every morning. It just seems inconceivable, and I've lived in some pretty unsafe neighborhoods.

A Person

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760

Posted: June 21 2016 at 19:45

I could consider myself in that situation, but the lack of access to food has to do with money. The fish and venison my brother gets can be very useful to my family. I could never do it though.

TeleStrat

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 27 2014
Location: Norwalk, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 9319

Posted: June 21 2016 at 19:41

How other people choose to (or not to) protect themselves and their home is entirely up to them and it is no one's business but theirs.

How I choose to protect myself and my home falls into that same category.

Many Americans keep a gun for protection simply because the bad guys have guns. If someone is breaking into my house, even if I have a chance to call 911, the police won't arrive in time to help because whatever is going to happen will happen in five minutes or less.

Anyone who says "it can't happen here" or "it will never happen to me" needs to do a Google search for the FBI crime statistics. They are published every year so it's not hard to see if violent crime is going up or going down.

I keep all of my guns except one in a gun safe as described earlier in this thread. The one that is not in the safe is kept in a locked gun box on the top shelf of my closet. At night when I'm ready for bed I put the box on the dresser and unlock it. In the morning I do the reverse. That's how I did it years ago when I was responsible for protecting a family of five and that's how I do it now.

Back then I read a lot about home defense and bought every magazine I could find about the subject.

Before I had a family I was in the Army and spent a year in a combat zone so I trust myself around firearms.

emigre80

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223

Posted: June 21 2016 at 18:29

I've been not posting here because I am sure to offend someone with my views, but decided I already offended so many people in the American Politics thread that a few more can't hurt.

I don't own a gun, have never owned a gun and never will own a gun. I grew up in NYC (hardly the safest place in the world), yet no one I knew owned a gun, with the exception of the father of a friend, who was a cop.

I have listened to all the arguments on both sides over the years, and still don't have any understanding at all of why anyone would want to have a gun in their house. For what? If it is safely stored (as I saw someone on this thread saying his guns were), it would be useless in the event of a break-in. I think it's fairly certain that no criminal would hang around waiting politely while you went downstairs and unlocked a safe. The only way a gun could be of help in a break-in is if it were unsafely stored - in which case the odds are much greater that it will cause harm to you or someone in your family.

Usually at this point someone will say, well, you've never been in that situation, so you can't understand how someone would feel safer with a gun. I have been in that situation. Our apartment was broken into one night while only me (17 years old) and my 12 year old sister were home. We ran outside to a neighbor's house to call the police. If it happened again, I would still run rather than use a gun.

I know that there are people that like to hunt, and call it sport. Again, I don't understand this. If you live somewhere with no access to purchased food, okay, but very few of us (and I imagine that no one on this site) is in that situation. If you want to eat venison or rabbit, you can purchase it. I accept that killing animals is the price we pay for eating meat and wearing leather, and I can live with that. What I don't understand is how someone can enjoy the killing part. It's not sport to go up against an animal with a weapon, it's killing, and I just don't get how killing is fun. I hit a squirrel once driving home at night and I'm still upset about it years later.

And I don't think it's just a Y chromosome thing. My husband feels exactly the same way.

People will then argue: okay, then only the criminals will have guns. Well, that's what makes them criminals, the willingness to use a gun to hurt or kill someone. Countries with gun control have occasional killings. They don't accept 8 children or teenagers being killed or wounded every day with a gun or rifle as part of a price of "freedom."

If you like target practice, take up archery. Throw knives. Guns have no reason to exist besides to harm or kill an animal or a human. Yes, arrows can also kill, as can knives. Not 50 people in a few minutes. And odds are, if you take a bow and a quiver full of arrows into a crowded bar, someone is going to catch on and stop you before you let one fly.

Nothing I have seen on this thread has changed my mind. I still can't understand why anyone would have a gun.

TeleStrat

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 27 2014
Location: Norwalk, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 9319

Posted: June 21 2016 at 17:27

The Dark Elf wrote:

Logan wrote:

[QUOTE=TeleStrat]

I think these people have many more sympathizers than we would like to think they have.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're right.

TeleStrat

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 27 2014
Location: Norwalk, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 9319

Posted: June 21 2016 at 17:22

dr wu23 wrote:

I never have owned a gun.....except for a pair of mint in case Colt Derringers I inherited when my father passed away...and I have never fired them.

I don't really have a problem with gun ownership but I don;t understand all the paranoia from many on the right who think any new or stricter regulations on background checks and making it more difficult for some to own guns are somehow infringing upon their Constitutional rights.

You'd think the NRA and other orgs like them would be in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of bad people and the mentally ill yet they seem hell bent on resisting any reforms.

Are they really that paranoid?

First of all, don't fire those derringers because in their condition they are worth top dollar. Wink

I mentioned earlier about separating criminals from law abiding citizens. I will add crazy people to that list because anyone who walks into a school, a place of business or a movie theater and opens fire on innocent defenseless people is bat sh*t crazy and no law in the world would have stopped them.

The actual background check form is on the internet. People who have never filled one out can see the questions that are asked. How many other questions relating to eligibility can be added?

On this form there is only one question that has a "yes" answer and that is "Are you a US citizen?"

If all of the other questions don't have a "no" answer then your not getting a gun.

Unfortunately, no law is going to keep guns out of the hands of bad people.

The Dark Elf View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Online
Points: 13056

Posted: June 21 2016 at 17:20

Logan wrote:

TeleStrat wrote:

I certainly agree that those few do not speak for all Christians but you can bet that the anti religious crowd will use it to their advantage.
It's interesting that before the internet and smart phones no one would have ever heard about this.
I'm sure that the sermons would have angered people in the congregation and they may have had words with the pastor but it wouldn't have made the local news.
In today's world I'm sure some people were on their smart phones posting on Twitter and Facebook while they were still in the church parking lot.
Thanks to high tech good news travels fast but so does hate.

Point taken; just want to add:

I expect that a lot of these kind of things still happen that never get around.

I watched sermons by the people I mentioned, and related ones, and I heard applause and assent from the audience (would have loved to hear a shame on you, but I guess harsh words would come after. The congregation tends to know where the pastors stand. I used to be a regular church goer and was never shocked by a sermon (but then Anglican Church sermons tend to be pretty non-controversial).

The most shocking video of Pastor Anderson he filmed himself, and wanted out there on the internet. Warning, highly offensive:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB-VsYiDrRw

I just don't want anyone to think that it's just angry people filming these things and then posting it, these churches and pastors are filming these and uploading them to the internet as well. I'm sure some people are monitoring known extremists and their web-sites looking for such stuff, and probably attending the services. I could be wrong, but I don't think any of the ones I mentioned were filmed and originally uploaded in a secretive fashion. They want to get their opinion based on their interpretations out there. As do the followers of the pastors who taped themselves and then put their videos up on youtube.

I think these people have many more sympathizers than we would like to think they have.

The thing about guns is that, invariably, the wrong people get shot.

...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...

Logan

Forum & Site Admin Group

Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35847

Posted: June 21 2016 at 17:16

Duos for fave acts

Post Reply	Page <1 2 345 6 9 >