Poll: Guns

Thread: How do you feel about guns?

  1. #561
    Minister of Technology
    Posts
    4,149
    Tiassa,

    I hate to say this, but you are be more than a tad overreactionary. The way you paint gun owners in a always negative light is neither good debating nor entirely truthful. Yes there are incidences where people have done wrong. Notice it is the people, not the gun. It could have been as esily a knife, club, bow, or car that was the weapon. Painting people who wish to retain the right to bear arms as paranoid is harsh and uncalled for. Many people live in violent areas. Yes the answer is to clean up the area, but that takes time and you have to defend yourself until then. Some town do not have their own police force. Some places you have to defend yourself from wild animals. Carrying a concealed weapon is no different than buckling your seatbelt or learning CPR. You are preparing for an event you pray never happens. The type of event that you have to act quickly. One that comes whether or not you prepared.

  2. #562
    Let us not launch the boat ... Tiassa's Avatar
    Posts
    30,521
    Quote Originally Posted by TW Scott
    I hate to say this, but you are be more than a tad overreactionary. The way you paint gun owners in a always negative light is neither good debating nor entirely truthful.
    It's about the discussion as much as the reality: Do I believe all gun owners are really so paranoid? No. I've known one in my life who wasn't. In fact, he got rid of his gun when he decided it made no real difference. Does the gun advocates' rhetoric describe the state of mind of all gun owners? I would hope not.

    In the last couple weeks, Seattle area news outlets have reported on a few incidents worth mentioning:

    - A mentally ill man was shot to death recently after attacking someone on the street. Apparently his victim was armed.

    - A boy of 13 or 14 brought an assault rifle to his school, threatened students and the principal, and discharged the weapon into the ceiling. He surrendered to police without exacting a blood toll. How did this weapon come to his hands?

    - A teenager in the Seattle area is currently charged as an adult in his brother's killing. The shooter claims it was an accident. He traded for the gun.

    The first is such that gun advocates would point to the incident as proof of the need for guns. I won't explore at this time the question of why nobody else intervened; news reports suggest there was plenty of time. The second and third incidents, however: how do we, as a community, work to prevent the illegal transfer of weapons? That such a transfer is considered "illegal" is in itself gun control. Do gun advocates really mean to legalize such transfers when they say gun control is unacceptable?

    If I shot everyone who I perceived to threaten me over time, the death toll would be huge. Unlike a neighbor downstairs, I do not find that the next-door neighbors throwing a party on a Saturday night is reason to load up the Glock. As someone who has had two separate cars stolen from me, I do not think my car is worth killing for. To the other, I once knew a stereo theif who caught some buckshot in the ass after trying to boost a sound system from a VW Beetle. And an acquaintance of mine claims to have pulled a gun on a guy who was "standing to close to his car".

    When people assert that "gun control is unacceptable", as has been variously stated in this topic, what does that mean? Let's start with the exaggerated: does the right to bear arms include nuclear weapons? Am I being ridiculous? How about grenade launchers? Machine guns? (After all, semi-automatic, properly used, is at least as effective as automatic.)

    Is it really that gun owners are so afraid that their primary argument revolves so heavily around perceptions of threat? "Don't penalize the responsible gun owners," some say. Well, if fear is the primary motivation behind the anarchic argument of so many gun advocates (and some of our posters), I say, "Don't penalize the civilized." After all, why should we, who survive daily without the comfort of knowing we have sufficient firepower to kill anyone who looks at us, have to tiptoe around the paranoias of such a massive corpus of insecurity? There are plenty of people who understand that cooperation in society is the best reason for willing participation. Coercion and fear only multiply, and have a cancerous effect on society. If the gun advocates' arguments didn't rely so heavily on fear and coercive force, perhaps those arguments would make sense.

    The security of a free state, for instance, is not simply reinforced by arming the population. The security of a free state is reinforced by not having grenades exploding everytime someone stands too close to your neighbor's car, and certainly by not having the city nuked every time a prowler tries to break into a home.

    The single-minded attitudes of the gun-advocacy argument are so prevalent in my personal experience that, yes, gun owners are, generally, creepy. They do, in fact, seem very frightened by damn near everything under the sun. Charlton Heston feared the National Guard. My neighbor fears our Hispanic neighbors. The Columbine killers feared jocks and status freaks. The rationality of anyone's actions (or the irrationality), when those actions are dictated by fear, has much to do with the rationality of those fears.

    My response to Neildo guessed after a human cause for his distorted perception: I do not attribute his conclusions and questions to simple stupidity or malice. There is a human factor involved, which can be wildly erratic. And yet his arguments echo so many others I've encountered that I do, indeed, wonder if this represents a common malady among those gun owners who speak up in such irrational advocacy.

    That nobody can offer any other theories, except to blame "liberals" at large?

    What, then, would you like me to think? Just accept whatever irrationality is put before me?

  3. #563
    how do we, as a community, work to prevent the illegal transfer of weapons? That such a transfer is considered "illegal" is in itself gun control. Do gun advocates really mean to legalize such transfers when they say gun control is unacceptable?
    I don't know anyone who is against common sense gun control. However, a lot of people here want to see them banned outright and that's just flat out wrong. I know many people who say that current gun control laws are a joke and don't work and are only there to hunder law-abiding citizens, and doesn't do a darn thing to target the ones who need to be targetted and that's criminals.

    So far people have said people shouldn't be able to buy a gun outright. Well, there's already a 10 day waiting period for one. Some people said you should have to be licensed for a gun and have training. That's already mandatory in many states for handguns and for concealed carry permits, it's even more strict and also requires renewal skill checks like with driver's licenses. In many states, it's required that a gun be in a safe, not some little wooden cabinet or under a bed, but even then some kids have used a brute force to bust it open and get the safe even on a heavy duty one as criminals usually go in and out and can't spend that much time crackin it but a kid with his parents at work have 8 hours to do so. Some people have said criminals shouldn't just be able to buy a gun and that background checks should happen and background checks already happen. People say felons, mentally ill, and other types shouldn't be able to buy a gun and they can't. Some people have said you shouldn't be able to just trade a gun to someone and you can't.. it's illegal and you need to have a licensed firearms dealer do the legal transfer otherwise you're breaking the law.

    Most of what people have said should happen are already law so what's the beef? Can't you realize that laws don't work at stopping criminals? Does it hurt that much that your ideals are failures? Laws are about restricting society, not criminals. Using laws to stop criminals is all in vain. It won't stop people that want to kill someone. All of those things can easily be bypassed by a criminal so in essence all you're doing is targetting law-abiding citizens and not the ones causing all the trouble. A criminal can easily go buy a gun in any bad part of town just as they can drugs. All of those laws are a joke because it doesn't stop them one bit. You guys don't realize that if someone wants to kill someone, they will. You can't stop crime, you can only help deter and defend yourself against it. You must realize that guns are a tool, not a crime itself. By getting rid of guns, you do not get rid of crime. When Australia and the UK banned their guns, their violent crimes didn't lower, it actually went up. Hey, less people to defend themselves adequately and guess what? Gun crimes still happen in those countries.

    So again, I don't know of anyone who's against common sense gun control, but so far what you have all come up with are nothing but failures. Just like your utopian dreamworld you all try to achieve, it seems good on paper, but it just don't work when it comes to reality. You can even ban guns and they still won't be gone. Laws only affect law-abiding citizens. Ban guns and criminals will still have em and use em in crimes. Go ahead and say "but we'll know who the criminals are" but that's not so. Why not? Because police don't arrive until the crime happens and usually they get away with it. Reality isn't a Hollywood movie like Minority Report where you can instantly know who is hiding a gun or when a crime with a gun will happen beforehand. What are you gonna do in the meantime, do a house-to-house search looking into everyone's homes for guns? Wow, what a great idea -- not. Heck, criminals will just bury em like they already do. With literally hundreds of millions of guns in this country, good luck getting rid of em.

    All I gotta say is that our gun crime rates aren't that bad when you take into account the millions of citizens that own guns here and the cache that is more than twice our population. With regular violent crime outnumbering gun crimes big time, I'll glady take the risk of gun crimes or accidents happening while having the opportunity to defend myself with one.

    Is it really that gun owners are so afraid that their primary argument revolves so heavily around perceptions of threat?
    Afraid of reality? I don't call it being afraid, I call it common sense safety. Are you so paranoid and afraid of getting in a car accident you wear your seatbelt? Are you so paranoid and afraid of getting your house robbed that you lock your doors? Are you afraid and paranoid that you won't go walking alone in a bad part of town at night? It's common safety. If crime were a rare thing, then you can call it being afraid and paranoid, but in cities, crime is a regular occurance. I've already mentioned the things I have to deal with on a daily basis. It's not like I'm in some ivory tower saying people should be entitled to guns without a threat ever happening to myself where I'm preaching theorhetic bullshit but instead I'm preaching reality.

    After all, why should we, who survive daily without the comfort of knowing we have sufficient firepower to kill anyone who looks at us, have to tiptoe around the paranoias of such a massive corpus of insecurity? There are plenty of people who understand that cooperation in society is the best reason for willing participation.
    Tiptoe around and insecure? Speak for yourself.

    And yeah, most people know that cooperation and being nice and all that lovey dovey stuff is the best way to go. But guess what? That don't always work. Again, welcome to reality. You are aware that hundreds of thousands of crimes occur each year, yes? Stuff like that only works if everyone abides by it. Until I don't have to deal with crime, I'm gonna play it safe as I do with all things in life. Here are the crime stats for 2005 in the U.S., assuming they're true from http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

    Population: 296M
    Violent Crimes: 1.4M
    Property Crimes: 10M
    Murder: 16k
    Rape: 93k
    Robbery: 417k
    Assault: 862k
    Burglary: 2.1M
    Larceny: 6.7M
    Car Theft: 1.2M

    A total of what, almost 20 million crimes in one year? That's friggin' crazy! That means about 1 out of 14 people have one of those crimes happen in them each year. Count yourself lucky! I feel sorry for the people in the big cities that have this crap happen to them more than once! You can all kiss my ass telling me I shouldn't be able to have a gun to defend myself from the ungodly amount of crimes that happen all the time. A dreamworld is all you guys live in.

    If the gun advocates' arguments didn't rely so heavily on fear and coercive force, perhaps those arguments would make sense.
    No, maybe if you left your liberal dreamworld and came to reality our arguments would make more sense for you. See above statistics.

    That nobody can offer any other theories, except to blame "liberals" at large?
    While I'm not one that blames the liberals for everything like right-wing nuts do, I do blame liberals for our massive crime and gun crimes.

    Why?

    Liberals don't like the death penalty so criminals remain alive.
    Liberals find prison to be bad so criminals don't serve long sentences.
    Liberals prefer rehabilition which doesn't work so those criminals come back on the streets.
    Most criminals have been in prison MULTIPLE TIMES therefore commit multiple crimes and acts of violence due to all of the above.
    Liberals are the leaders in most big cities and that just so happens to be where most crime is centered.
    Liberal leaders have banned guns in most major cities yet gun crimes still happen there at an ungodly rate because criminals do not follow laws.
    Liberals have put the safety of their citizens in jeopardy due to the gun bans as it means law-abiding citizens have unadequate means to defend themselves against criminals becoming easier targets.
    Liberals have wrote most of the anti-gun laws and they're all jokes based not off how a gun operates, but how it cosmestically looks.

    Shall I continue or no?

    My response to Neildo guessed after a human cause for his distorted perception: I do not attribute his conclusions and questions to simple stupidity or malice.
    Good, you better not have because I already gave real life examples for my need for guns. Distorted perception, ha! Crime happens all the time around where I live. I've already been victim. I've already saved people before. Most of my friends are cops and we all have to pack because they're targets. They get confronted all the time by criminals they've written tickets for or have busted. We have to leave the fun we're doing on our days off if we spot a guy because a confrontation will happen. It's even worse when one may be alone with their wife as that really sucks big time having to evade everyone because cops are so hated. What you don't realize about gun owners is that we don't go looking for trouble. We don't resort to our guns as our first line defense. We try and avoid confrontations to begin with. Surely with is us being so "paranoid", you'd have known that. We only use guns as our last line of defense.

    But hey, what am I talking about? This world is a peaceful utopian society. This is all stuff that never happens and we like to make up. Crime doesn't exist all because you've yet to experience it therefore nobody else ever needs to defend themselves because we all live the same lives as you.

    - N

  4. #564
    Neildo:

    Liberals don't like the death penalty so criminals remain alive.
    And so do innocent people wrongly sentenced to death.

    Liberals find prison to be bad so criminals don't serve long sentences.
    In fact, about 80% of people in US prisons are in for minor drug offences, such as possession of marijuana. They are put in prisons with hardened criminals, and what happens? They come out as hardened criminals.

    Also, consider: do we send criminals to prison as punishment, or for punishment?

    Liberals prefer rehabilition which doesn't work so those criminals come back on the streets.
    Who says rehabilitation doesn't work? Lots of people manage to get off drugs, for example.

    Most criminals have been in prison MULTIPLE TIMES therefore commit multiple crimes and acts of violence due to all of the above.
    A good argument against prisons, isn't it?

    Liberals are the leaders in most big cities and that just so happens to be where most crime is centered.
    I have a theory that if you live in the US and you can't see the ocean, you're less likely to be liberal and more likely to be a gun-toting redneck. Middle-America is very insular.

    Liberal leaders have banned guns in most major cities yet gun crimes still happen there at an ungodly rate because criminals do not follow laws.
    First I've heard of this. In which major cities are guns banned? Can you please provide some references? Also, wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

    Liberals have put the safety of their citizens in jeopardy due to the gun bans as it means law-abiding citizens have unadequate means to defend themselves against criminals becoming easier targets.
    You're just paranoid. The chances of a gun being useful for you to defend yourself against stranger attack, even if it ever happens, are negligible.

    Liberals have wrote most of the anti-gun laws and they're all jokes based not off how a gun operates, but how it cosmestically looks.
    You wouldn't generalise, would you? No bias here.

  5. #565
    Quote Originally Posted by Neildo View Post
    When Australia and the UK banned their guns, their violent crimes didn't lower, it actually went up. Hey, less people to defend themselves adequately and guess what? Gun crimes still happen in those countries.
    Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I though the point of the laws in Australia and the UK were to lower the number of gun related deaths in particular mass murder.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neildo View Post
    Just like your utopian dreamworld you all try to achieve, it seems good on paper, but it just don't work when it comes to reality.
    I think you've been reading too much of the Baron. Who is "you all"? What utopian dreamworld on paper? Even if every single gun on the planet was gone tomorrow I don't believe too many would be claiming that as utopian.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neildo View Post
    Tiptoe around and insecure? Speak for yourself.
    When theres people like Baron Max carrying concealed weapons around I'd be feeling a little insecure

    Quote Originally Posted by Neildo View Post
    Shall I continue or no?
    The foam coming from your mouth says no

  6. #566
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Max View Post
    Agreed ..protection against threats is important. But what does that have to do with paranoia or being scared?

    Every day, in every large city in the USA (and other nations, too), there are people murdered or killed right on the sidewalks of the city. So if one carries a gun for protection against that threat, he's armed virtually all the time that he's out. It's not paranoia, it's not knowing where the threat will be or come from.

    And more importantly, I think, why do you not want people to protect themselves from that possible threat?

    Baron Max
    Ok. So lets just assume you carry a loaded gun concealed on your person at all times when you are out, for protection against people who may wish to harm or threaten to harm you.

    Scenario 1
    You are walking down the street and a person comes and grabs you from behind putting a knife to your throat or a gun to your head while keeping you in his grip from behind. You pull out your loaded gun and do what? Shoot him? He's got you bailed up from behind. How are you going to threaten him with the gun you are now holding in your hot little hands? Attempt to struggle so you are possibly standing in front of him with your gun pointing at him? Hmm in a struggle, you could 1) either drop the gun, 2) accidently pull the trigger possibly hurting yourself or a passerby (the threat is still behind you as you're struggling), or 3) he manages to get the gun off you in your struggle. Hmm yes, I can see how a gun would keep you safe in such a situation (end sarcasm).

    Scenario 2
    You are walking down the street and a person holding a gun or a knife jumps out in front of you and demands you hand over your wallet, etc. You refuse and pull out your loaded gun and do what? Shoot him? Lets not forget now, if he's holding a gun pointed at you, he will be watching as you pull out what he might think is a wallet, and as soon as he sees that it is a gun, he shoots you. Yes, again I can see how that gun you are carrying to protect you could protect you in such a situation. If the guy's holding a knife, he could either stand his ground or run. So you what? Keep standing there pointing your gun at him as he stands there with his knife? What then? Stalemate? What if he runs? You'll chase after him down the street with a loaded gun in your hand, posing a risk to passer's by, or you shoot him in the back as he runs away? Excessive force. Again, yes that gun has served and protected you well in such a situation (end sarcasm).

    Scenario 3

    You are walking down the street and you see a crime being committed against another person (eg a mugging). You pull out your trusty loaded magnum and what? Threaten him with it, putting the person he's mugging in greater danger, especially if the guy has a gun or knife pointed at them. Or do you shoot the person, possibly missing and hitting the innocent victim of the mugging. Yes, real form of protection for you there (end sarcasm).

    Scenario 4

    You are in a bank or a store and a person comes in with a gun and tries to rob the establishment. What would you do? Pull out your gun as your safety could be at issue and do what? Shoot the guy or tell him to put his weapon down? What if he just shoots you before you get a chance to even say anything when you've pulled out your gun? Refer to above as to how well your little concealed gun has served you again.

    Scenario 5

    You are walking down the street and a person or a couple of guys, jump on you and tackle you to the ground. In the struggle you manage to get your gun out. What exactly do you do then? Shoot the gun? He/They are struggling with you on the ground, how exactly will you be taking aim? What if in the struggle he/they manage to wrestle the gun from you and use it not only on yourself but on another innocent victim? Refer to above in regards to how well that gun has protected you from harm.

    Do you get where I'm going here. A concealed gun will most probably not protect you from harm from another person. As you have admitted yourself, you do not know where the threat could be coming from. So how can you carrying a gun help keep you safe? If he's coming from behind you and puts you in a headlock with a gun to your head, how are you going to shoot him for example. You shoot him in the foot, he shoots you in the head.

    If you feel that threatened that you feel the need to carry a gun to keep you safe, maybe it's time to start ordering in, as someone who's that scared that they feel the need to arm themselves when walking down the street poses a danger to not only themselves, but to others as well. And by others, I mean innocent people going about their business.

  7. #567
    You anti gun people make no sense. If someone wants to kill you, they don't have to use a gun. At least with a gun, people know you were murdered. Some of the other more sophisticated ways aren't as traceable, but I guess you all prefer that people poison and accident each other instead of shoot each other.

    You just don't get it. The murderer instinct is in the blood, it's not in the gun.

  8. #568
    You anti gun people make no sense.

    You must want people to resort to poisoning people and accidenting people, you want people to resort to less detectable methods.

    At least when a person is killed by a gun, you know they were murdered. If you are for gun control, you still arent anti violence, or anti murder, or even anti criminal, you just prefer the criminals be smart. All you are going to do if you removed all the guns on planet earth, is empower the chemical and drug dealers, and people of this sort.

    Let me guess, some of you own stock or something in drug companies? A bad pill can kill, a drug overdose, food poisoning, bad water, bad air, I mean why do you worry about guns? Do you really feel more secure or do you just fear dying from a bullet more than all the other more likely forms of death? You people don't check or secure your food, or your water, and you fear guns? Do you eat at resturants?

    Ultimately, murder is murder, death is death, it does not matter how it happens.
    The killer instinct, the murderer instinct, it's not in the gun, it's in the blood. People are born with the ability to easily kill people or not, and it does not matter what weapon the person has, anything can be used as a weapon. In prisons theres no guns, but people find ways to create weapons. Most murders arent gun murders, but poisoning is still the top form of murder, yet you still fear guns?

    Why don't you outlaw pesticides, chemicals, and other harmful chemicals that could be used to poison people? Why don't you make people get a license before they can purchase any harmful chemical, or in fact why not have drug control, chemical control, pesticide control, and just fully protect people from the environment?

    Protecting people from guns in my opinion solves NOTHING, what you really have to do is protect people from people.

  9. #569
    Quote Originally Posted by tiassa View Post
    It's about the discussion as much as the reality: Do I believe all gun owners are really so paranoid? No. I've known one in my life who wasn't. In fact, he got rid of his gun when he decided it made no real difference. Does the gun advocates' rhetoric describe the state of mind of all gun owners? I would hope not.

    In the last couple weeks, Seattle area news outlets have reported on a few incidents worth mentioning:

    - A mentally ill man was shot to death recently after attacking someone on the street. Apparently his victim was armed.

    - A boy of 13 or 14 brought an assault rifle to his school, threatened students and the principal, and discharged the weapon into the ceiling. He surrendered to police without exacting a blood toll. How did this weapon come to his hands?

    - A teenager in the Seattle area is currently charged as an adult in his brother's killing. The shooter claims it was an accident. He traded for the gun.

    The first is such that gun advocates would point to the incident as proof of the need for guns. I won't explore at this time the question of why nobody else intervened; news reports suggest there was plenty of time. The second and third incidents, however: how do we, as a community, work to prevent the illegal transfer of weapons? That such a transfer is considered "illegal" is in itself gun control. Do gun advocates really mean to legalize such transfers when they say gun control is unacceptable?

    If I shot everyone who I perceived to threaten me over time, the death toll would be huge. Unlike a neighbor downstairs, I do not find that the next-door neighbors throwing a party on a Saturday night is reason to load up the Glock. As someone who has had two separate cars stolen from me, I do not think my car is worth killing for. To the other, I once knew a stereo theif who caught some buckshot in the ass after trying to boost a sound system from a VW Beetle. And an acquaintance of mine claims to have pulled a gun on a guy who was "standing to close to his car".

    When people assert that "gun control is unacceptable", as has been variously stated in this topic, what does that mean? Let's start with the exaggerated: does the right to bear arms include nuclear weapons? Am I being ridiculous? How about grenade launchers? Machine guns? (After all, semi-automatic, properly used, is at least as effective as automatic.)

    Is it really that gun owners are so afraid that their primary argument revolves so heavily around perceptions of threat? "Don't penalize the responsible gun owners," some say. Well, if fear is the primary motivation behind the anarchic argument of so many gun advocates (and some of our posters), I say, "Don't penalize the civilized." After all, why should we, who survive daily without the comfort of knowing we have sufficient firepower to kill anyone who looks at us, have to tiptoe around the paranoias of such a massive corpus of insecurity? There are plenty of people who understand that cooperation in society is the best reason for willing participation. Coercion and fear only multiply, and have a cancerous effect on society. If the gun advocates' arguments didn't rely so heavily on fear and coercive force, perhaps those arguments would make sense.

    The security of a free state, for instance, is not simply reinforced by arming the population. The security of a free state is reinforced by not having grenades exploding everytime someone stands too close to your neighbor's car, and certainly by not having the city nuked every time a prowler tries to break into a home.

    The single-minded attitudes of the gun-advocacy argument are so prevalent in my personal experience that, yes, gun owners are, generally, creepy. They do, in fact, seem very frightened by damn near everything under the sun. Charlton Heston feared the National Guard. My neighbor fears our Hispanic neighbors. The Columbine killers feared jocks and status freaks. The rationality of anyone's actions (or the irrationality), when those actions are dictated by fear, has much to do with the rationality of those fears.

    My response to Neildo guessed after a human cause for his distorted perception: I do not attribute his conclusions and questions to simple stupidity or malice. There is a human factor involved, which can be wildly erratic. And yet his arguments echo so many others I've encountered that I do, indeed, wonder if this represents a common malady among those gun owners who speak up in such irrational advocacy.

    That nobody can offer any other theories, except to blame "liberals" at large?

    What, then, would you like me to think? Just accept whatever irrationality is put before me?


    What I don't understand is why, anti-gun people seem to not even care if they live or die. I mean, at least the gun nuts admit they are insecure, people like you want to be naive and pretend like theres a guardian angel protecting you.

    Your halo will not protect you. So theres no gun violence where you live? There's still murders going on, theres still people dying, whenever people are dying, there may be people being murdered, you have to track every statistic. In general, murder happens, because there are more aggressive people in this world than passive. Yes a lot of people are passive, but do you realize and admit that you are defenseless? Will you admit to being a completely defenseless sheep?

    I don't know WHY you feel safe, the world is not safe, it has never been safe, people have been killed over and over, murdered over and over again, in all sorts of innovative ways, and you feel safe? Life is moment to moment, you may think you are safe while actually being in danger. You may be safe at this moment, and in danger the next. There is no way to calculate safety, the only way to be safe is to be paranoid or join a gang.

    In prison, only two people survive. The first kind, are those who are paranoid as hell and who don't trust anyone, but who stay to themselves and hope to avoid a confrontation. The other type are the people who join a gang, and who have strength in numbers.

    If you are neither of these people, theres absolutely nothing to prevent you from being gang raped, abused, and bullied to death.

    Read both of these links before responding.
    http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-With-Being-in-Prison
    http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume9/j9_3_6.htm
    Last edited by TimeTraveler; 10-11-06 at 02:28 AM.

  10. #570
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    23,053
    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    The chances of a gun being useful for you to defend yourself against stranger attack, even if it ever happens, are negligible.
    Are you also against insurance for the very same, exact reasoning? If not, why not?

    Baron Max

  11. #571
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    23,053
    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    First I've heard of this. In which major cities are guns banned? Can you please provide some references? Also, wouldn't that be unconstitutional?
    Amazing ...just fucking a-fuckin'-mazing!!!! You're arguing for gun control, you want to take guns away from people to use and enjoy, yet you know so fuckin' little about gun laws and restrictions?! What the fuck???

    New York City, Washington, DC, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburg, Philadelphia, ....the list goes on and on and on. Take Washington ...guns are illegal and the purchase of guns within the city is tightly controlled ...yet Washington has one of the highest rates of gun violence in the whole fuckin' nation! Yet you, James, want to pass another law to control guns in Washinton??? And you think it'll stop the violence in Washington??? Hmm?

    Get an education, James, instead of relying on your own intuition ....which ain't workin' too good on this issue!

    Baron Max

  12. #572
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    23,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Bells View Post
    If you feel that threatened that you feel the need to carry a gun to keep you safe, maybe it's time to start ordering in, as someone who's that scared that they feel the need to ...
    Do you wear seatbelts when you drive, Bells? Why? I mean, surely you don't plan on running into another car, do you? Or do you plan on someone else running into you? If not, why wear the seatbelts?

    Do you carry insurance on your car, Bells? Why?

    Baron Max

    PS - your little scenarios were pretty funny, but idiotic.

  13. #573
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    23,053
    But all-in-all, what I can't get through my head is .....why are you gun control advocates trying to punish the good guys because of the stupid actions of a few demented individuals? Does that make sense to you? Really?

    Should we punish all Muslims because of the actions of a few violent individuals? Should we punish all the kids at school for the actions of a few bullies?

    Should we take away all of the freedoms because a few people use those freedoms to commit crimes?

    Baron Max

  14. #574
    Bells examples are good.

    In fact, in many cases where a home owner confronts a burglar and the home owner trys to use a gun to "defend" himself and his home, the burglar often takes the weapon and shoots the gun owner, leading to a somewhat worse outcome than would have been the case if the proud owner of the gun hadn't bought the gun in the first place.

  15. #575
    Why does the 'right' to own guns = freedom? I would worry that people carrying guns might restrict my freedom in that I could be confronted by someone carrying a gun at any time. Even if I were 'free' to carry a gun the other person could be a better shot than me.
    I feel more free knowing that people aren't free to carry guns in my country and those that do illegally usually end up shooting each other. There's always the danger of becoming caught in the cross-fire but I could just as easily be mown down by a car.

  16. #576
    Let us not launch the boat ... Tiassa's Avatar
    Posts
    30,521

    Cool Common Sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neildo

    I don't know anyone who is against common sense gun control. However, a lot of people here want to see them banned outright and that's just flat out wrong.
    Common sense gun control: look, we can agree that it would be wrong to ban guns outright. Part of the problem I perceive with the dialogue is that the anti-liberal diatribes tend to ignore those of us who acknowledge on the one hand that guns have a place in society and, to the other, that there are problems deriving from guns or any other lethal power that can be possessed.

    And perhaps you don't know anyone who is against common sense gun control, but part of the discussion in this topic you are objecting to comes in response to sweeping statements to the effect that any gun control is wrong.

    How should someone like me consider those messages? Their prevalence, perhaps motivated by an "anti-liberal" ferocity, is striking: it is such irrationality--e.g. that even what you and I might be able to agree is "common sense gun control" is wrong--that casts gun owners and advocates in such a morbid light. When a "common sense" gun advocate rushes to the defense of guns in a discussion that involves extreme limits, that common sense gun advocate paints himself in the extreme colors.

    Why does a common sense gun advocate get so frustrated by inquiries into the nature and motivation of extreme and irrational rhetoric? Why should a common sense gun advocate make this an issue about general labels like "liberal" when such labeling conveniently casts aside any progress that could be made through more specific, considerate, and rational discussion?

    If you want to respond to me, for instance, with generalisms about liberals, the discussion will stalemate at best. As to what's the beef, inasmuch as the existing laws are concerned, a law in one jurisdiction is not necessarily a law in another. If we're seeking a free and secure state, safe from threats by government, other nations, and also our own internal criminals, what we're really seeking is freedom from the effects. Why object to the killer? Because someone is dead. Why object to the accident? Because someone is dead or hurt. Why seek to reduce gun violence? Because someone is dead or hurt. The corrosive effects on our community and collective strength are the problems. Meeting corrosion with corrosion accomplishes nothing positive.

    So where do we go from here?

  17. #577
    Let us not launch the boat ... Tiassa's Avatar
    Posts
    30,521
    Quote Originally Posted by TimeTraveler

    What I don't understand is why, anti-gun people seem to not even care if they live or die. I mean, at least the gun nuts admit they are insecure, people like you want to be naive and pretend like theres a guardian angel protecting you.
    The confusion you describe is a matter of your own perception. People care about living and dying. But if we spend our lives worried about living and dying, we're not really living in that broader sense that applies to both high literature and lowbrow insults, such as, in the case of the latter, telling someone to "Get a life".

    Think of those single-minded politicos who make abortion or taxes or anarchism their central, living motivation. They're often as dead-eyed as the so-called Joneses who strive for their 2.4 children, 3.7 televisions, 2.5 computers, the minivan, the riding lawn mower, &c. How can you find any happiness in life if everything you see is an image of fear, loathing, or even simple discontent? Does the rabid Marxist shout, "To the proletariat!" at orgasm?

    Earthquakes, comets, hurricanes and floods? Yes, we need to give these thngs some consideration, but if we cower every day in fear of these things, if we spend our lives waiting for God, are we really living? Are we not, in the case of terrorism, doing the terrorists' bidding if we spend every day afraid of when and where the next strike will come? So I vote, I write, I talk about it with friends every once in a while, but I'm not going to freak out about terrorists. A Muslim has as much right to be a complete idiot as a Christian or atheist or witch (ad nauseam). Just because a Muslim in my community says something stupid doesn't mean he's a terrorist. Just because the people downstairs throwing the party are Hispanic doesn't mean I need to load up a Glock. I wouldn't shoot someone for my car. Should one of my best friends have shot her father for his improprieties? The horror of that situation is its own; how would she deal with the knowledge of having killed her own father?

    There have been a rash of burglaries lately in Seattle. Thieves are entering and exiting quickly, targeting small items like wallets and purses. Having guns in the house won't do much for anyone; keeping your wallet or purse somewhere other than the kitchen counter, however, will. A home security system will help more than a gun: how can you shoot someone if you're asleep and don't know they're in your kitchen?

    I have a daughter going on four: her capacity for mischief is amazing. For me to have a gun in the house that could be used effectively in case someone broke into my home would, in my specific case, present a greater threat to my daughter's safety than crime. I do still have a good knife for stabbing people, but it's so deeply hidden that I'm not going to reach it unless the criminals take their own, sweet, loud time coming in the front door. In which case, I can still call 911 and expect the intervention of my neighbors long before I could put the blade through the bad guy's left eye.

    It's not that I don't care about living and dying, but that I'm not going to spend every waking second in fear. I'm not going to see every human face as a threat. They're human, just like me. If I want to gamble, I'll play the damn lottery.

  18. #578
    Most criminals have been in prison MULTIPLE TIMES therefore commit multiple crimes and acts of violence due to all of the above.

    A good argument against prisons, isn't it?
    Huh, how in the heck so? Perhaps if liberals didn't give low sentences for crimes such as robbery and assault having to only serve 4-6 months but actually had some real punishment, they wouldn't be able to get out so early to go ahead and commit more crimes. Thankfully some states have a three-strike law, just too bad it doesn't always apply, but here's a big huzzuh to those that enforce it.

    Also, consider: do we send criminals to prison as punishment, or for punishment?
    To me, they're one and the same thing. Prison isn't supposed to be nice. Prison isn't just supposed to be a place where you're kept away from society and that's it where you can still live a regular life, hell no. Life should be hell there and you should pay for your crimes. And there's a reason why there's minimum security and maximum security prisons. I don't think someone that stole a measly piece of bread should be put in a maximum security prison. I don't think some lil hacker should be in a maximum security prison. But someone who killed some people, violently robbed a bank, raped women and all that? Hell yeah they should be! And they shouldn't have a light sentence only having to serve a few months or barely 2-4 years for it either, even if they have been good in there!

    Liberals are the leaders in most big cities and that just so happens to be where most crime is centered.

    I have a theory that if you live in the US and you can't see the ocean, you're less likely to be liberal and more likely to be a gun-toting redneck. Middle-America is very insular.
    Nice theory, in theory, but I guess I'm the exception to most rules as I live at the beach.

    What's the biggest reason for my position? I deal with reality. I see the crime that happens in my area on a daily basis and have also been victim to it. I'm not living in some ivory tower talking about theorhetical possibilities of what crime could do but rather living it.


    Liberal leaders have banned guns in most major cities yet gun crimes still happen there at an ungodly rate because criminals do not follow laws.

    First I've heard of this. In which major cities are guns banned? Can you please provide some references? Also, wouldn't that be unconstitutional?
    Sorry, I shouldn't have said most major cities, but rather most major cities that have most of the crime, which would kinda be almost all major cities tho, heh. And yes, I'd say it's unconstitutional but there's not a damned thing we can do in most cases. Thankfully this past year in San Francisco, they tried banning all handguns but it was barely shot down, so to speak. Here's some other tidbits according to wikipedia:

    * New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

    * In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.

    * In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

    * After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.

    * Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

    * 20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.[2]

    * New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - and 20 percent of the armed robberies. Even more troublesome is the fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons

    * After Canada passed a gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased.

    * Violent crime accelerated in Taiwan and Jamaica after handguns were banned.


    I'm also trying to find my list of U.S. cities that have gun bans but can't find it at the moment. I try searching in google and the majority of links that come up is the stupid San Francisco gun ban issue as if it were spammed.

    Liberals have put the safety of their citizens in jeopardy due to the gun bans as it means law-abiding citizens have unadequate means to defend themselves against criminals becoming easier targets.

    You're just paranoid. The chances of a gun being useful for you to defend yourself against stranger attack, even if it ever happens, are negligible.
    Yes, that's why 1.5 million crimes are prevented each year thanks to people and their guns whereas only half those crimes are commited with guns, eh?

    Liberals have wrote most of the anti-gun laws and they're all jokes based not off how a gun operates, but how it cosmestically looks.

    You wouldn't generalise, would you? No bias here.
    Uh, that's not a generalization, but fact. I've made some generalizations about liberals in this thread, but that statement isn't one of them. Here's an example from wikipedia (or you can just read state law):

    California

    California has some of the strictest gun control laws of the United States. The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, its subsequent augmentation in 1999, and the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004 has led to many restrictions on semi-automatic firearms. In addition to a lengthy list of specific firearms that are banned by name, the following firearms are banned by characteristic:

    * (1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any two of the following:
    o (A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
    o (B) A thumbhole stock.
    o (C) A folding or telescoping stock.
    o (D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
    o (E) A flash suppressor.
    o (F) A forward pistol grip.
    * (2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
    * (3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
    * (4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
    o (A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
    o (B) A second handgrip.
    o (C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
    o (D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
    * (5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
    * (6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
    o (A) A folding or telescoping stock.
    o (B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
    * (7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
    * (8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

    There are also numerous other laws, such as prohibition on possession of tracer ammunition, handgun armor piercing ammunition, .50 BMG rifles, and the sale or transfer of magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds. All rifles are normally exempt for the original owner if properly registered at the time of the acts which prohibited them.

    In addition, the law states that any weapon that is part of the AR-15 series or AK series is also an assault weapon, regardless of manufacturer; this dates back to 1989 ban, and was confirmed in the Kasler v. Lockyer decision, filed 6/29/2000 [1]. However, the California Supreme Court declared the identification of assault weapon by series membership to be too dubious and difficult for the average citizen or even trial court to make without specific and clear model identification guidelines. The court thus set some specific requirements for the "series" identification portion of the law in their ruling of Harrot v. County of Kings, filed 6/28/2001 [2]. This decision required banned firearms to be specifically listed by make and model in California Code of Regulations (the "Kasler list", [3]) (it did not address assault weapons defined by features.) Thus, only firearms specifically listed by exact combination of manufacturer and model name, or conforming to explicit exterior characteristics (such as a pistol grip or folding stock in combination with a detachable magazine) can be banned under current legislation.

    Once it was realized the California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) has not updated the "Kasler list" in the five years after Harrott decision, many Californians found they could legally purchase and possess AR and AK rifles not yet officially identified as "series" members. As of February 2006, over 10,000 "off-list" receivers (frames) for such rifles have been legally imported to, and purchased within, California. The only requirement for these receivers are that the combination of make and model is not explicitly listed as banned, and as long as the owner does not add certain "characteristic features" turning the firearm into an assault weapon (i.e. pistol grip, flash suppressor, etc). These characteristic features can be used, however, if a nondetachable 10-round (or less) magazine, conforming in the converse to the California Code of Regulations section 978.20 definition of detachable magazine[4], is affixed to such "off-list" rifles. These off-list rifles can also be used without a pistol grip, folding stock or flash hider, in which case it is legal to own and use them with detachable magazines.

    The CA DOJ produced a report from the Ferranto Commission in response[5], intimating that this list will be updated in early 2006; as of August 2006, it had not done so. On February 1, 2006, the CA DOJ also issued a controversial memorandum about this subject[6]; critics say the described actions are not founded or supported within statutory law in Penal Code 12275-12290. This memo stated that once off-list "series" firearms are declared and registered as assault weapons, they will not be able to have characteristic features added or fixed magazines removed. This is being challenged by pro-gun groups, since there is no criminal violation in the California Penal Code for adding or changing features to a legally-acquired, registered assault weapon.

    On November 8, 2005, San Francisco voters enacted Proposition H, a total ban on the manufacture, sale, transfer or distribution of firearms or ammunition in San Francisco, as well as a ban on the possession of handguns within the city by San Francisco residents (excepting peace officers, security guards and the like). It does not, however, prohibit possession of weapons other than handguns, nor does it prohibit residents of other cities from possessing handguns in San Francisco.

    This makes San Francisco the third major U.S. city, following Washington, D.C. and Chicago, to enact a ban on handguns. However, San Francisco's ban goes farther, as the bans in Washington, D.C. and Chicago have grandfather clauses protecting existing gun owners. Handgun owners in San Francisco must turn over their handguns to the police by the end of March 2006, or move. However, in early 2006, San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren struck down the San Francisco handgun ban, asserting that under California law local officials do not have the authority to ban firearms from law-abiding citizens. The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed the ban from its inception.
    [edit]

    Issues with the California laws

    As with most gun laws, there is much debate about the legality and effectiveness of California's gun laws. However, both sides agree that there are many firearms that are legal in California that are functionally identical to prohibited weapons, and evidence of the effectiveness of such laws is hard to come by. Both sides also agree that the law needs to be revised to make it more clear so ordinary people can understand what constitutes an assault weapon and what does not.

    When the act was being debated in the legislature, the Association of California Cities, a prominent supporter of that act, claimed that California law enforcement agencies feared that some groups in large cities might undertake successful rebellions against civil order if armed with modern weapons. In spite of hundreds of thousands of such "assault weapons" in the public hands for some decades, no such events have ever occurred anywhere in the USA. Prominent members of black churches in L.A., as well as Senators Boxer (D-CA) and Feinstein (D-CA), have claimed that the only real purpose of such weapons is to kill large numbers of people, and therefore there is no reason to permit them. Some gun rights advocates argue that the police commonly carry such weapons in their cruisers and that if the only real purpose of such weapons is to kill large numbers of people then the police should not be carrying them either.

    Some gun rights advocates claim that the primary uses of these firearms in civilian hands has been, and continues to be the sport of recreational target-shooting (there were no reported deaths or injuries related to the sport of target shooting in 1999, 2000, and 2001). Most gun rights supporters base their authority on the Second Amendment, which declares the necessity for "a well regulated militia", and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

    Based on engineering differences, ease of modification, and their high level of expertise, California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) members see nothing special about assault weapons except their appearance, which is exactly what the gun collectors want, and what the legislature wants to prohibit. The legislature has thus been accused of being paternalistic and somewhat frivolous for creating the Assault Weapons Control Act. Another example of politically based gun laws is the ban of all ammunition with the word "Magnum" in the name by some parts of Los Angeles, when in fact the word Magnum is rather meaningless in ammunition nomenclature, with its reputation largely based on movies, not ballistics.

    Gun rights advocates argue that the only real purpose of these "assault weapons" bans is to make the public used to the idea that firearms can be banned by government action and the public simply must accept any bans that the government chooses to impose in the future. According to gun rights advocates, these bans have purely symbolic and propaganda purposes with no chance of reducing violent crime.

    Supporters of the ban counter that the banned features of these weapons were designed for military use. Supporters also argue that the features that define an "assault weapon" make it useless for hunting and less effective for target shooting, but more effective in combat. Gun rights advocates counter that this view exhibits an ignorance of what is involved in, e.g., competitive target shooting, and the features which are desirable in a gun intended for that pursuit. They point out that the military design heritage of the banned "assault weapons" may make for a more rugged and durable gun. They assert that some exterior features on some firearms targeted for ban - such as a pistol grip or a folding stock - lend only a cosmetic similarity to military weapons, and that the removal of these features simply restricts law abiding citizens' rights without reducing crime.
    In regards to the features of a gun being illegal and how little difference it makes, here's an example. This is a rifle I'm waiting on to be released, the Beretta RX-4. Due to the "only one feature" limitation where two features makes it an assault weapon and therefore illegal, this is the combination of "accepts a detachable mag" and "pistol grip".

    In other states, the top and bottom pic are legal (detachable mag and pistol grip) yet illegal in California, and the 2nd pic is the picture where it's legal in California because it has no pistol grip. The reason why the laws are silly is because it doesn't make it any harder to kill someone. Most of those laws are purely costmetical. Look at that second picture which is legal for California and tell me how it's any worse off than those other legal guns in other states?

    Picture in link below:

    http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9799/rx4stack6cu.jpg

    Shall I continue or no?

    The foam coming from your mouth says no
    Woof.

    Scenario 1
    Scenario 2
    Scenario 3
    Scenario 4
    Scenario 5
    By your questions in those scenarios shows how little you know about guns and the training involved. You just don't flat out try and grab your gun instantly as that's foolish. Everything in life is about opportunity. Here's an real-life story and example from a guy I know on another forum since he goes into good detail about the encounter. And yes, it's true as he was in the paper and all. I'll make another post of it since it's a lil long.

    - N
    Last edited by Neildo; 10-11-06 at 05:12 PM.

  19. #579
    Here's that story I was referring to in my previous post in regards to defending yourself with a gun and how it's about opportunity, not going out with guns blazing the moment you get assaulted:

    http://www.thehighroad.org/showthrea...+gable+stevens

    Here's what I posted about a year a go over on www.calguns.net. Please remember that this is my memory of events as they happened. During the trial I was able to verify certain details and I was able to obtain a copy of the original police report, but haven't obtained a copy of the court transcripts (working on it).

    This occurred at the former National Shooting Club, located in Santa Clara, CA. We were a full retail gunshop, with an indoor 20 lane range. The business has since changed hands and is now Reed’s Indoor Range.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Well it’s been 2 ½ years, the trial has been over for almost two years and the bad guy is in jail for 48 years, so what the hell.

    This is going to be a long post; I’ll try and give as many details as I can. I’m going to leave out the names of the other employees involved; but I have no problem telling you the name of the bad guy: Richard Gable Stevens.

    Monday, July 5th 1999. A lot of people took this day off as a holiday; we were open and busy on the range until about 7pm. Earlier in the day about 12 noon, Stevens had come in; black male, about 20 years of age, 6’. Dressed in black jump boots, camouflage BDUs and a black t-shirt. A lot of people dress specifically to go shooting so the jump boots and cammies weren’t that odd. He spent a long time in front of a glass display case we had that contained among other firearms, a post-ban Colt 9mm Sporter and several pre-ban 32 round magazines for it. We had a pre-ban Colt 9mm Sporter with a 32 round magazine for rent and it was a popular firearm (though it was getting a little worn out).
    He didn’t ask any questions and didn’t seem to need any help until he came to the front counter area. One of our employees said to me that she had “a bad feeling� about this guy and asked me to go talk to him. I saw him hanging out at the front counter and asked him if he needed any help- he stated that he had the day off and was just checking out all the firearms we had in the various displays. He seemed ok and didn’t seem to me to be different than any other customer. I talked to two other employees about him and they stated that they had seen him in the store earlier last week and that he was ok. He left the store shortly after that.

    We had decided to close early that day, as it was very slow after about 6:30pm. About a quarter to 8pm I was on a phone call as Richard Gable Stevens came back to the store, still in his jump boots, black t-shirt and camouflage BDUs, and rented the pre-ban Colt 9mm Sporter, the 32 round magazine and two boxes of Remington UMC 9mm 115grn FMJ. He finished checking in and went out to the range as I finished my phone call. Since we were going to close at 8:30pm, I asked one of the other employees to go inform him that we were closing early and we would only charge him for half an hour of range time. The last customer in the retail area left and it was just myself the cashier and the other employee in the store area. Stevens was the only customer in the store at that time.
    While shooting on the range, he had a feed failure that I had to clear for him. While doing so, he asked if the Colt was a “good gun�. I said yes it was, but this rental was pretty used and a little beat up. He thanked me and continued shooting. I should tell you that at this time I was the only armed employee. The cashier was a younger female that did little shooting and didn’t own a firearm. The other employee on duty was armed earlier but had taken off his firearm only moments before to put on a haz-mat jumpsuit to clean the range. I was armed with a Glock 30, .45 caliber. It was loaded with a total of 10 rounds of Federal Hydra Shock 230grn Jacketed Hollow Point. (This choice of ammo, later turned out not to be the best.) One round in the chamber and nine in the magazine. I was carrying it in a right hand Galco Model PLE paddle holster with a thumb break. I was wearing a gray t-shirt with a button down shirt over that, un-tucked and un-buttoned so that the firearm was concealed from sight. When every an employee was armed while in the store, they always carried concealed for the simple reason that if the firearm was openly carried and there was a robbery or some other incident, open carry was like wearing a sign that said “Shoot me first because I can shoot back�. This turned out to be critical.

    At approximately 8:10pm Stevens came out of the range to use the pay phone which I though was odd as he knew we were closing early and he was wasting range time. He went back out to the range to continue shooting.
    The cashier (I’m going to call her Mary from this point out) was behind the register, I was outside the cashier area but standing directly to the left of it. The other employee (we’ll call him Bob) was standing directly to my left. Mary was on the phone to the owners, telling them the day’s total in the register.
    At about 8:15pm Stevens came out of the door to the range very quickly with the Colt on his shoulder and leveled at us. He shouted “put up your f*cking hands or I’ll blow your f*cking heads off!� He told Mary to hang up the phone, which she did. He asked if any of us were armed. We said no. (I was trying not to raise my hands too high, as I was afraid that it would expose my sidearm.) I told him he was in charge and that he should calm down (I have a basic rule: don’t argue with the man holding a loaded gun on you). He continued to tell us that if we didn’t do as he said he would kill us. He repeated it many times during the incident He then told Bob, Mary and myself to move over to the side of the range windows on the left and to turn away from him. While he was behind us with us facing away, was the only time I was really scared: I was convinced that he was going to shoot us in the back right there. I thought about my wife and how much I loved her. I thought about him shooting me and how it would be: 9mm 115grn full-metal jacket, through a 16 inch barrel. It probably would go right through me and if I was lucky I might be still be able to draw and fire. Like I said that was the only time I was really afraid.
    Stevens then told Mary to come over to where Bob and I were. The phone rang. Stevens told Mary to answer it while he held the rifle to her head. Mary picked up the phone and told whomever it was that we were closed and then hung up. He then told Mary to go back into the cashier area and to give him three more boxes of ammo. Now, to enter or exit the cashier area you have to go through a door in a separate hallway- or jump over the counter. I kept glancing over my right shoulder to keep an eye on what Stevens was doing; Bob was to my left- we both had our hands up against the glass of the observation windows of the left side range. At this point neither of us could see Mary as she had started down the hallway to re-enter the cashier area. As I looked away from Stevens and back to Bob, Stevens fired two shots.
    I thought that he had shot and killed Mary- but as I looked over my right shoulder again, I saw her in the cashier area, still standing. Stevens still had the rifle leveled at her head. She then put three more boxes of Remington UMC 9mm on the counter for him. Stevens told Bob and myself to move over to where he was and had Mary re-exit the cashier area join us; standing in a row myself, Mary then Bob. Stevens, rifle still aimed at our heads, told us he wanted extra magazines for the Colt and that we’d “better not b*llsh*t him because he knew we had extra magazines�. Also he repeated that he’d kill us if we didn’t cooperate. I told him we had extra magazines in the glassed-in display case that he’d been looking at earlier in the day. He walked us down one of the aisles; him in front walking backward to keep the rifle on us. I had the keys to the display case in my pocket and was trying to figure out how to get them out without showing that I was armed. He was about four feet in front of me with the rifle aimed at us. He quickly spun to his right and fired rapidly six times, blowing out the glass in the display case (and incidentally putting rounds through the upper handguard of an Armalite AR-10 that we had on display, through several books, and through the buttstock of the other Colt we had on display). He turned the rifle back on up and with his other arm behind him he reached through the broken glass and scooped up the two other 32 round magazines we had. I remember telling him to be careful not to cut himself on the broken glass: he was already agitated enough- I didn’t want him getting any more disturbed.

    Stevens then had us turn around and with him behind us he made us walk to the front door area of the store, where he had us put our backs to the wall opposite the front door. Then with the rifle still aimed at us with one hand, he walked over to the pay phone near the cashier area and made a phone call. I didn’t (at the time) know who he was calling and could not hear the conversation. I heard him say “mother� or “mom� though. He then hung up and walked back over to put his back against the glass front door facing us with the rifle. He then said “that we’d been nice to him particularly Bob�. He then quickly inverted the rifle and placed the muzzle under his chin and his thumb on the trigger. Both Bob and I told him not to shoot himself. Bob said that he probably had a family that loved him and not to do this. Stevens said, “he was dead already.� He then got this weird smile on his face and pulled the muzzle away from his chin. He then stated: “Nah, not right now.� He then told us to “watch the 10 O’clock news� and opened the glass front door and exited. He stood right outside the door and started shouting at us to keep our hands up or he would shoot us through the glass. (I kept thinking- leave m*therf*cker and I’ll lock that door behind you so fast, and get on the phone to 911).

    Stevens then re-opened the front door and told us he was going to take us with him. He motioned for us to follow him outside to the parking lot. I made sure I was in front of Bob and Mary as we exited the door. Stevens was walking backward in front of us with the rifle in his right hand, aimed at us. He was cradling the three extra boxes of Rem 9mm in his left hand. He continued to walk backwards away from us as we followed him. The space between us opened up to approximately seven yards. He then told us he was going to kill us. He reached the corner of the building and turned quickly to look down the alley to the rear parking lot, rifle still aimed at us. I drew my Glock, brought it up with both hands on it just as he turned back to us. I saw the front sight come up and fired. I remember squeezing the trigger at least two times (it wasn’t until the trial I found out that I had gotten off four rounds). He fired a split second after I fired my first shot (again, it wasn’t until the trial I found out that he had actually fired twice).
    I saw him then drop the rifle and ammo and run down the alley. I ran to the corner of the building while yelling for Bob and Mary to get inside and call 911. I did a quick peek down the alley and saw that Stevens was lying down face up, about 30 feet away. I ran up to him, about ten feet away and kept my Glock pointed at him. Just as I got to him, he said, “you shot me!� I told him yes I shot him and to stay down with his hands out. Actually I wasn’t aware that I’d hit him until then; the only visible would I could see was to his right arm where a round had entered just inside his wrist and opened his arm up exposing the whole length of bone from there to inside his elbow before exiting through his upper arm.
    At this point I looked over my right shoulder to see Bob opening up the side door to the alley. He was on the phone and I yelled at him to make sure and give the police our description. I turned back to Stevens who now had bloody foam at his mouth. I told him to keep breathing- the ambulance would be there soon. I looked back over my right shoulder to see Bob again coming out the side door, carrying one of the Mossberg 590 shotguns that we had had in the sales area. He approached Stevens and myself with the shotgun shouldered and leveled at Stevens. I told Bob to watch his trigger finger, as I didn’t want him shooting by unintentionally. I asked him if he’d given the police our description and he said that he had.
    Then every police officer in the world arrived.

    Conclusions and after thoughts:

    Richard Gable Stevens had a plan that he meticulously detailed out in a long rambling statement that he had left in his car, which the police found during their investigation. His plan was to take us to the back of the building near the dumpster and kill us. Then he planned to take the extra 150 rounds of ammunition and magazines for the Colt 9mm Sporter and go to a downtown San Jose night club called The Usual (where I found out later he had been turned down for a job as a bouncer) and then kill as many people as he could before the police killed him or he killed himself.

    Stevens himself gave many signals that this was not just a robbery: his total lack of interest in taking any other firearms from the store, not asking for money from the register, his need for extra magazines and ammunition. His statement to “watch the 10 o’clock news.�

    People have asked me why I didn’t engage Stevens earlier in the store. Up until the moment that he took us outside and he told us he was going to kill us, there was still the chance that this whole thing could end with him just leaving. But after he made it clear what his plans were after taking us from the store, I decided that we had no other options left and I had to act at that point.

    I hit Stevens twice; once in the right arm as previously described and once in the chest. The chest shot, which turned out to be the first hit, entered through the left nipple destroyed the top 1/3 of his left lung and then exited through his left shoulder blade. The round was found, only slightly expanded, on the asphalt of the parking lot. I’ve spoken to several Law Enforcement firearms training officers and forensic pathologists and the overriding opinion is that the Glock 30’s short barrel (3 ¾�) is insufficient in length for that heavy round to get up to the speed needed for reliable expansion (I’ve since switched to Speer Gold Dot 200grn +P jacket hollow point). I was not aware of the chest wound as he was wearing a black t-shirt and almost all of his bleeding was internal or underneath him. Stevens survived his wounds due to the simply fact that there are three major trauma center hospitals in the area, he was taken to Valley Medical. It turned out that he had almost bled out completely and had to be defibrillated twice in the ambulance on the way. He was 21 at the time and a body builder so he was in good health to begin with. He currently has limited use of his right arm due to the muscle damage, and had two thirds of his left lung removed.

    When the police arrived on the scene he was non-compliant and had to be shot three times with a less lethal device, a Sage gun, which shoots a hard rubber baton.

    It’s funny what you remember and what you don’t remember in times of extreme stress. I don’t remember Stevens asking any of us if we were armed when he first came off the range, but the other two people do. I remember after shooting Stevens and standing over him in the parking lot, looking down at my feet to make sure that I was standing correctly and then looking to make sure that my finger was off the trigger and along side the trigger guard as I didn’t want to negligently fire again with all the adrenaline flooding my blood stream.

    One of the most important things I learned is that everything I’ve ever read about situations like these is basically true. Your training really does take over. Working at the range I had ample opportunity to practice drawing from cover and firing controlled double taps. When the moment came, I don’t recall making the conscious decision to draw, but I had and I had automatically presented my Glock properly, brought it up found my front sight (big as a beach ball) against his black t-shirt and fired. Other true cliches: none of us remember hearing the shots fired in the parking lot. I had complete tunnel vision at that moment and don’t remember seeing anything other than my front sight on him until he dropped the rifle. I remember running to the corner of the building and looking down to see the rifle and the three dropped boxes of Remington 9mm.

    At the trial, we had a very aggressive prosecuting attorney and an excellent judge. Everything was fairly straight forward, Richard Gable Stevens was convicted of 14 out of 15 felonies: three counts of armed robbery with use of a firearm, three counts of assault with a deadly weapon, three counts of kidnapping, three counts of making terrorist threats, one count of false imprisonment and one count of discharging a weapon in a inhabited building. All of the felonies had sentencing enhancements for use of a firearm. He received a total of 48 years, of which he must serve a manditory 85% before possibility of parole. He’ll be 62 before he’s eligible for parole.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    In answer to the obvious question, yes I was sued by Stevens. For 'negligent discharge of a firearm'. It was with a certain pleasure that I was able to write in the affidavit that, 'no, it was not negligent- I damn well meant to shoot Stevens.' The suit never made it to court as the insurance company for the range, which was named in the suit as well, offered Stevens a 'one time only, no negotiation, offer of $5000' which he took and signed off on any rights to future action. This really REALLY did not sit well with me and the others involved. But the lawyer for the insurance company explained it like this; ' what if he (Stevens) gets a sympathetic court and jury? You (me and the others) could lose your business, your house, everything. So if I could make this whole thing go away for $5000 and didn't do it, I wouldn't be doing my job.' Still bugs me.

    The one felony charge that Stevens was found not-guilty, was attempted murder of Mary ( the shots he took at her in the cashier area). The reason the jury could not agree on the attempted murder charge was this: if he really had wanted to murder her, after taking the two shots and missing, he could have just took a step closer and put the muzzle in her face and shot. He did not. Therefore no attempted murder. Just assault with a deadly weapon. Whatever. I'll never understand how courts work. In the crime scene investigation report, they were able to recreate the scene and map out the bullets trajectories from where Stevens was standing when he fired and the impact points of the bullets in the wall behind where Mary was standing. He missed her head by 12" and 16".

    I spoke to the ADA about a week ago, and Stevens appeals have run out so I may get my Glock 30, holster, and 6 rounds of HydraShok back soon.

    So there you go.
    __________________
    /Chris
    Edit: In that first link is a thread about real life encounters so there's some other good reading there although this one has always stuck with me due to the amount of scary detail.

    - N
    Last edited by Neildo; 10-11-06 at 04:43 PM.

  20. #580
    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    I think there's more to it than that. I think the US media, in particular, feeds the American public a constant diet of fear. Fear of terrorists. Fear of street crime. Fear of people of other races. etc.
    It's not the media. The world is just dangerous. Just because most people are killed by someone they know, it does not mean they should be less paranoid, it means the opposite, they should be more paranoid.

    The reason Americans think like this is because we are insecure, we are insecure because we know more intimately how fragile life is. Cancer is the #1 killer, next to heart diseases, life is fragile as hell, and the basic theory of everything, is to fight to survive, for food, for water, for air, for everything, because nothing is guarenteed and nothing is free.

    It's a competition to survive, you know it, I know it, and the only difference is you'll try to pretend it isnt in public while competing just as hard in private, while Americans are a bit more blunt about it, which I guess is more rude, but it's ultimately true.

    America is the most competitive place on planet earth. We have some of the richest and some of the poorest people in the same country, we have ghettos here and we have mansions, and the only way to survive here is to compete for everything.

    Police are generally good here, but there is a limited number of police officers, and even if most are good, there arent enough of them. We have a FBI here, and many in the FBI are good, but once again these are government entities which depend on government funding, while criminal entities essentially have unlimited funding. Banning guns would be as bad for America as banning alcohol once was, when prohibition started, the Italian mafia came to extreme power. There are stories about Al Capone and other mafia bosses and these stories are legendary. All of this happened because alcohol was banned. This means when you ban something, it creates a black market for it that would be bigger and more profitable than if you left it unbanned, and only the criminals will be involved in buying and selling guns. Just like how only the criminals are involved in buying and selling illegal drugs.

    So this means there will likely be twice as many guns on the streets if you ban guns than if you don't, and it will create all sorts of new markets, but I guess you don't pay much attention to the economic side of this debate.

    It's not about Americans, Americans are normal people, but we are also very insecure, because we know we are hated all around the world. Guns don't make us more secure, but it gives some people enough security to function and go on with their lives. If you are a famous celebrity, how exact are you supposed to function without a gun? If you are an important person, or you have an important job, you might need a gun just to stay alive. Some people need their guns, not because it offers full protection, but because it offers some protection, and you are demanding that people have absolutely no protection.

    Your point of view only makes sense if you are rich enough to hire your own private army, your own body guards, your own high tech security system, etc, because if you arent, theres no one to protect you but yourself, and sadly thats what most Americans learn, they learn that they are in this alone, and if they don't protect themselves who will?

    The confusion you describe is a matter of your own perception. People care about living and dying. But if we spend our lives worried about living and dying, we're not really living in that broader sense that applies to both high literature and lowbrow insults, such as, in the case of the latter, telling someone to "Get a life".

    Think of those single-minded politicos who make abortion or taxes or anarchism their central, living motivation. They're often as dead-eyed as the so-called Joneses who strive for their 2.4 children, 3.7 televisions, 2.5 computers, the minivan, the riding lawn mower, &c. How can you find any happiness in life if everything you see is an image of fear, loathing, or even simple discontent? Does the rabid Marxist shout, "To the proletariat!" at orgasm?

    Earthquakes, comets, hurricanes and floods? Yes, we need to give these thngs some consideration, but if we cower every day in fear of these things, if we spend our lives waiting for God, are we really living? Are we not, in the case of terrorism, doing the terrorists' bidding if we spend every day afraid of when and where the next strike will come? So I vote, I write, I talk about it with friends every once in a while, but I'm not going to freak out about terrorists. A Muslim has as much right to be a complete idiot as a Christian or atheist or witch (ad nauseam). Just because a Muslim in my community says something stupid doesn't mean he's a terrorist. Just because the people downstairs throwing the party are Hispanic doesn't mean I need to load up a Glock. I wouldn't shoot someone for my car. Should one of my best friends have shot her father for his improprieties? The horror of that situation is its own; how would she deal with the knowledge of having killed her own father?

    There have been a rash of burglaries lately in Seattle. Thieves are entering and exiting quickly, targeting small items like wallets and purses. Having guns in the house won't do much for anyone; keeping your wallet or purse somewhere other than the kitchen counter, however, will. A home security system will help more than a gun: how can you shoot someone if you're asleep and don't know they're in your kitchen?

    I have a daughter going on four: her capacity for mischief is amazing. For me to have a gun in the house that could be used effectively in case someone broke into my home would, in my specific case, present a greater threat to my daughter's safety than crime. I do still have a good knife for stabbing people, but it's so deeply hidden that I'm not going to reach it unless the criminals take their own, sweet, loud time coming in the front door. In which case, I can still call 911 and expect the intervention of my neighbors long before I could put the blade through the bad guy's left eye.

    It's not that I don't care about living and dying, but that I'm not going to spend every waking second in fear. I'm not going to see every human face as a threat. They're human, just like me. If I want to gamble, I'll play the damn lottery.
    You don't seem to understand why people go to work, or go to school. We don't do it for our happiness, we do it for security. No one wants to live in the ghetto, the only way out of the ghetto is with a college degree. Life is a constant struggle for survival, and just because you had an easily life it does not mean the rest of us had it so easy. You just don't get it, if you don't protect yourself, who will?

    How are you going to protect your daughter? with words? I'm not actually a gun advocate, I'm a self defense advocate. How do you protect your daughter? It's your primary job as a mother, so how are you managing to do it? Do you assume that order ALWAYS exist in the world?

    I wish the world were like that, but order exists only as long as it's maintained.
    Last edited by TimeTraveler; 10-11-06 at 06:07 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •