Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Why Not To Own A Firearm
America's Debate > Everything Else > Casual Conversation
Google
AuthorMusician
Two news reports that came back-to-back recently have revealed why you might not want to own a firearm.

The first is the father who shot his son dead at a supposedly safe indoor range when a hot shell allegedly bounced off the wall and fell into his shirt, then he used his hand holding the pistol to get the shell out, and that resulted with him shooting his son in the jugular vein. A few moments later his son, 14 years old, died.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/04/us/florida-f...-son/index.html

The second is a guy getting shot in the leg at a Denver gun show.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denver-man-acc...anner-gun-show/

Firearm enthusiasts rationalize these incidents away by claiming they should never have happened if the firearms had been handled correctly, basically that guns don't kill, people do.

Same can be said for most traffic injuries and fatalities. Vehicles don't kill, drivers do.

So is that good enough for you? Or does it make sense to avoid firearms and places where they are fired in order to not be shot? Does your need to feel secure outweigh the risks involved in owning firearms?

Other examples come to mind, some exactly the same and others that are stranger, such as the camper not too far from here being killed by a stray bullet. The round came from an unsupervised range about a third of a mile away, which has also been the starting place for two fires this year.

I guess that's one reason they're called firearms, but I understand that exploding targets were involved. Hey, lets go into wildfire areas and start some -- ought to be fun!

Reminder: This is Casual Conversation, a place where points don't have to be made but where education can happen. My purpose is to encourage education on the risks of firearm ownership, especially those that are usually ignored. Like getting shot at a gun show in Denver or losing your child due to a freaking hot shell falling into your shirt -- one of the major reasons I sold my Glock 9mm. It did that all the time. There were several other reasons as well. I no longer own a firearm, have no plans to own them in the future, and I have my reasons.

Google
Eeyore
Absolutely it is good enough for me. Owning a gun is like owning anything else that can cause death. It needs to be owned expertly and with great care and caution.

I do not feel that the odds of my owning a weapon improve the net safety of my family. I have definitely been around gun owners who took care of their weapons in a manner to not feel like my safety is at risk. More rarely I have been around those that I would not stay in the area of them and their weapons. (Pardon my grammar)
AuthorMusician
As I've aged, I have reduced the amount of risk I'm taking by not owning a firearm. The risk involves someone else hurting themselves and/or others with the firearm, most notably children of the grand variety, but also adults who might be tempted to misuse the firearm. Which includes myself. Then there's the ever-present risk of inadvertently misusing the firearm, as opposed to consciously, as in what we call accidents.

This isn't the only risky business I've curtailed or stopped altogether. I've stopped riding motorcycle, as the greatest risk here involves getting injured enough to rack up enormous medical treatment debt but not enough to kill me.

Stopped drinking alcohol in all its varieties and only occasionally have a non-alcoholic beer (< 0.05% as advertised).

No longer hang around honky-tonks and juke joints, music festivals, and don't jam with other musicians in what usually resulted in a pretty big hangover in the past. Not gigging either, but as I work up jazz repertoire, might go back to the tiny venue stuff, which often happens around alcohol but it's pretty easy for me to not drink while gigging -- very detrimental to music expression/accuracy.

You might think that all the fun in life has gone away, but I had a great time this morning playing arpeggios for the pelicans out at a mountain reservoir not known to most tourists and not overused by locals. There's a time to entertain and a time to meditate/practice. This morning was of the latter stuff, as is pretty much all of it now. Wrap it up in structure, and out comes repertoire.

You might think that old age brings with it crippling caution, and you're right. It's not caution born of fear but of desire to have one more morning with the pelicans on/above the waters before it's lights out. It's a little like feeding the pigeons in the park, but a whole lot better. Lydia is into building complex Lego projects and has taken up the chromatic harmonica -- her piano hands have gotten too stiff/painful/uncontrolled.

If there's wisdom in old age, it's the discovery, or rediscovery, of the immense pleasure one can get from playing with a plate of peas.

This being a state of mind, it makes zero sense to protect it with a firearm, and nobody can take it away. Everything else is replaceable or not necessary. And to top it all off, the stuff you can take with you will be taken, like it or not.

I do understand how fear prompts the ownership of a firearm. The challenge is determining if the fear goes beyond reason. For example, the fear of death might cause the purchase, but what if the firearm is used to commit suicide? The solution to the problem just became the very means to the undesired outcome. Doesn't seem to be reasonable at all. And what about protecting the family if family members shoot each other, or more commonly, are shot by one member? Nope, entirely outside the boundaries of reason.

Chances are I won't be injured/killed in a motorcycle accident because I don't own a motorcycle. There is still a chance that I get killed or injured by someone else on a motorcycle, but it's far slimmer. Same goes for a firearm.
johnlocke
I recommend that everyone own a weapon. You have to keep your family safe and it is the best means of protection in the modern day. You cannot battle potential invaders with a bat anymore, god forbid you ever had to.

Having said that, gun safety is more important than gun ownership. Everyone should take gun safety classes whether or not they own a gun, so you can recognize unsafe gun handling and get away from morons, of which there are many.

Mrs. Pigpen
The first is the father who shot his son dead at a supposedly safe indoor range when a hot shell allegedly bounced off the wall and fell into his shirt, then he used his hand holding the pistol to get the shell out, and that resulted with him shooting his son in the jugular vein. A few moments later his son, 14 years old, died."

There was a firearms course my husband and sons took at an outdoor range in Miami. I can't remember the type of course it was (they've taken many). They were all using semi-automatic rifles.
At any rate, there was a guy all tattooed up with a look and attitude where you knew he was one of those faux thugs in the city.

The class all lined up at the targets, after shooting a couple of seconds one of the bullet casings falls under his shirt in the back and he proceeds to run into the line where the whole class is firing, kind of making a skippy dancing movement. They all stopped shooting and set their weapons down while he danced around like something out of the three stooges.

Our boys learned from the very beginning, "I don't care if an alligator comes up and bites you on the junk, pay attention to your weapon".

"Same can be said for most traffic injuries and fatalities. Vehicles don't kill, drivers do."

Yep. Cars are dangerous too. Our youngest now has his driving permit, and I try to get him a lot of practice so he sees and experiences the road under all sorts of conditions.
Until eventually he can handle it alone.
Julian
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 4 2017, 01:45 PM) *
"Same can be said for most traffic injuries and fatalities. Vehicles don't kill, drivers do."

Yep. Cars are dangerous too. Our youngest now has his driving permit, and I try to get him a lot of practice so he sees and experiences the road under all sorts of conditions.
Until eventually he can handle it alone.


Interesting - nobody bats an eye at the idea of a state-issued driving permit, with maybe a test of some kind to show that one has mastered the basics. Or the idea that, before someone has passed their test, it's a bad idea (and, usually, against the law) for someone to drive a vehicle without the relevant permit to do so.

Contrast that with the (adapted by me) sentences:

QUOTE
"Same can be said for most gun injuries and fatalities. Guns don't kill, shooters do."

Yep. Guns are dangerous too. Our youngest now has his shooting permit, and I try to get him a lot of practice so he sees and experiences the range under all sorts of conditions.
Until eventually he can handle it alone.


The idea of a state-issued shooting permit is, apparently, open to challenge and an unconscionable infringement of rights in the eyes of many.

Is the only reason for that difference because the Founders, for contextually very good reasons, saw fit to mention the bearing of arms in the Bill of Rights? As a thought experiment, if private cars had been a thing in the 1770s, and the Founders had enumerated the right to drive them in the Bill of Rights, would the idea of driver licensing be an unconscionable infrignement of inalienable rights? Or just plain common sense?

If the latter, why doesn't plain common sense make it illegal for anyone to fire a gun (not own one, in perfect analogy to cars) until they have passed a basic test to show they are competent to do so?

Haven't posted in a while - events this side of the pond are hairy enough to keep me busy worrying about them, never mind the periodic (and increasingly frequent, at least since November) insanities emanating from the USA.
AuthorMusician
Something crossed my mind after posting the above: Firearm owners need to take to heart this saying among motorcycle enthusiasts:

"It's not if but when (you crash and burn)."

The concept is that no matter how well-trained you are and how well-experienced you are, you remain human and therefore fallible. Additionally, bad stuff happens on the road that's beyond your control. Owning a firearm does not change this fundamental dynamic of human existence.

I took a lot of risk riding MCs for so many years, but I had good reason to do so: Riding MC enables enlightenment like no other mode of transportation. What does owning a firearm provide? Not enough to justify the risk IMO.
Mrs. Pigpen
Well, Jules, it is reasonable to require a license to carry (which would be an appropriate analogy to a driver's license, "taking it out on the road"..and most if not all states do require a license to carry).
A licensed shooting range isn't the equivalent of driving on a public road. It's more like an enclosed go-cart racing area. Padded up, with strict rules and a signed permission form explaining those rules. Accidents, though they might happen (like the go cart racing area) are pretty anomalous and risks very low.

There are some practical limitations to requiring one for just shooting. Here they are as I see them:

1) Enforcement: Enforcement should be the first consideration when passing any law.
In this case I see much greater potential for harm in enforcement than benefit from the law. I can cite numerous examples of laws stricter than that and from what I've observed over time they caused harm to people who desired to protect themselves, and benefitted the persons who wished to do them harm.
(enforcement is also the basis for my stand on abortion laws, and I support the new laws allowing marijuana under certain conditions on similar grounds)

2) Gateway: I see laws like that as a gateway toward stricter controls. I say that because such laws....DO typically result in stricter controls. What one might agree to that sounds reasonable can turn into something quite unreasonable after it passes. See the cake thread. Allowing homosexual marriage seems completely fair to me. But that shouldn't mean any and every business that objects to celebrating the occasion should be forced by law to violate their belief system and create a product that celebrates the occasion.
Worse, much like the issue of firearms I don't see a lot of objective analysis on the balance of rights there...just politically motivated persecution toward those of different views, and even glee at the pain they are causing. Cakes and firearms aren't the only things...
Just symptoms of how polarized our society is becoming on every issue. Global guerrillas (John Robb) did a short writeup on it.

The bottom line is, I'm going to find it very difficult to compromise with people I don't trust (we're speaking of the masses here, not specific individuals...I might trust a neighbor but not his political party). And I don't see a lot of reason to trust (this is true of both sides, btw....it's why I have trouble conceding any ground on abortion as well...though typically I am arguing against the opposite audience).
Bikerdad mentioned the importance of trust for "improving the human condition" a while back and he was spot on, though I had no idea how much so at the time. I've reflected on it a lot since. Especially during the election when it was Hillary versus Trump. That's EXACTLY how and why we ended up with Hillary versus Trump. And plenty of people were gleeful at the prospect of forcing the other side to suffer under his or her leadership.
It's really a mess.

Edited to add: Link to Simon Sinek on the anatomy of trust. I'm sure I've linked to this before here, but it's really pertinent to a lot of topics.
AuthorMusician
If you trust people, that could be another reason why not to own a firearm. However, it's also very naive. People who CC obviously don't trust others, else there'd be no reason to CC. The whole idea of owning firearms for protection has its roots in distrust.

The question then becomes what's riskier -- owning firearms or not owning firearms? Do untrustworthy people cause more damage than firearm owners?

I don't know, but the risks of firearm ownership are more constant than the risks from other people. The risks of firearm ownership are also within the control of the firearm owner -- locks, separating ammo from firearm storage, and of course choosing to not own. The choice not to own eliminates the risk of ownership, but does it increase the risk from other people? It follows logically that the risk from other people would rise, but by how much?

I haven't experienced enough of a rise to justify firearm ownership. In fact, I haven't noticed any difference whatsoever, other than not having to worry about firearms in the shack -- soon to be an apartment. Will apartment living change my mind? I doubt it, as I've lived in plenty of apartments in the bad parts of cities without needing a firearm for protection. But now I'm a senior with a lot less body mass than in my younger days, so maybe . . . but then there's all that mojo collected along the way.

That's the advantage of age, eh? Can pull Jedi mind tricks without anyone knowing. There also seems to be respect given for having survived, or something like that.

Plus we'll still be in the mountain cow town we've lived in for the past 20 years. That has to make a big difference regarding the risk from other people -- we are known here. Does that equate to trust? Maybe just familiarity, like living with a cat that could scratch your eyes out. Maybe trust and respect are necessary co-components. One cannot exist without the other.
Julian
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 9 2017, 01:31 PM) *
Well, Jules, it is reasonable to require a license to carry (which would be an appropriate analogy to a driver's license, "taking it out on the road"..and most if not all states do require a license to carry).
A licensed shooting range isn't the equivalent of driving on a public road. It's more like an enclosed go-cart racing area. Padded up, with strict rules and a signed permission form explaining those rules. Accidents, though they might happen (like the go cart racing area) are pretty anomalous and risks very low.

There are some practical limitations to requiring one for just shooting. Here they are as I see them:

1) Enforcement: Enforcement should be the first consideration when passing any law.
In this case I see much greater potential for harm in enforcement than benefit from the law. I can cite numerous examples of laws stricter than that and from what I've observed over time they caused harm to people who desired to protect themselves, and benefitted the persons who wished to do them harm.
(enforcement is also the basis for my stand on abortion laws, and I support the new laws allowing marijuana under certain conditions on similar grounds)


I take your point that people prepared to break the law (to rob, rape, murder etc. while armed) aren't going to pay much attention to a law that requires them to pass a test to be allowed to use a firearm. But then again, are they? Chances are that a getaway driver once learned how to drive legally and took a driving test when they were 16 or 17 and got their driving licence. They may then use a forged one to work as a getaway driver, but that's more than likely to be so that they can hide their identity than to hide the fact they never formally learned how to drive. Because, well, everybody does that, don't they?

That, by the way, is the nub of my thinking on guns generally. It's a cultural thing. In the UK, hardly anyone owns a gun, even criminals, so the assumption is you won't need to worry about coming across anyone with one, for good or ill, therefore there is no pressing need to arm oneself for protection or any other reason. That was true when private gun ownership was legal here, and it's no less true now (outside some sections of criminality which, as we've already established, aren't all that fussed by the law to begin with). Also culturally, I think the Brits are more bad-tempered and have shorter fuses, so gun ownership here at American levels would be a Very Bad Idea. It might solve population growth, at a stroke, but we'd run out of burial space pretty quick, and need to build a lot more crematoria. The pub would be a pretty dangerous place to be, all of a sudden.

In the US, the odds of coming across someone else who is armed are much higher, even if only in perception, so it makes sense to arm yourself. If I ever got the privilege of coming to live and work in the US for any length of time, I'd look into arming myself because - well, everybody does that, don't they? It's cultural, in practice. The Constitutional part is an expression of that culture, and reinforcement of it. One would make no sense without the other; the Founders wouldn't have bothered to write it down if they didn't themselves give gun ownership a passing thought (like most modern Brits don't).

QUOTE
2) Gateway: I see laws like that as a gateway toward stricter controls. I say that because such laws....DO typically result in stricter controls. What one might agree to that sounds reasonable can turn into something quite unreasonable after it passes.


I don't buy that in this case, at least not while we're using the driving licence analogy - the fact that the state requires licensing before letting people drive on the public highway hasn't led to ever-tighter and more draconian rules on who can and cannot drive. It's just become a fact, and has stayed more or less the same since it was introduced (at least to my knowledge).

QUOTE
See the cake thread. Allowing homosexual marriage seems completely fair to me. But that shouldn't mean any and every business that objects to celebrating the occasion should be forced by law to violate their belief system and create a product that celebrates the occasion.
Worse, much like the issue of firearms I don't see a lot of objective analysis on the balance of rights there...just politically motivated persecution toward those of different views, and even glee at the pain they are causing. Cakes and firearms aren't the only things...
Just symptoms of how polarized our society is becoming on every issue. Global guerrillas (John Robb) did a short writeup on it.


I don't disagree with the polarisation argument as an observation on how society is changing, but should the law just accept that and pander to it, or should it take a stand against it? A big question, and one we won't settle here, but I think it's worth raising. The law should be about shaping the society, not pandering to its worst aspects. If the murder rate goes up, we prosecute more murderers, we don't decriminalise some types of murder, do we?

QUOTE
The bottom line is, I'm going to find it very difficult to compromise with people I don't trust (we're speaking of the masses here, not specific individuals...I might trust a neighbor but not his political party). And I don't see a lot of reason to trust (this is true of both sides, btw....it's why I have trouble conceding any ground on abortion as well...though typically I am arguing against the opposite audience).
Bikerdad mentioned the importance of trust for "improving the human condition" a while back and he was spot on, though I had no idea how much so at the time. I've reflected on it a lot since. Especially during the election when it was Hillary versus Trump. That's EXACTLY how and why we ended up with Hillary versus Trump. And plenty of people were gleeful at the prospect of forcing the other side to suffer under his or her leadership.
It's really a mess.


As an observation, I can't disagree, though I think the way to solve it isn't to just avoid anyone who might think differently. Despite wishful thinking to the contrary, there are still unambiguous facts available that should be common to all, even if some (most) journalists, commentators and ordinary citizens on all sides have forgotten that they need to accept things they don't like to gain the greater good of a peaceful and cohesive society.

QUOTE
Edited to add: Link to Simon Sinek on the anatomy of trust. I'm sure I've linked to this before here, but it's really pertinent to a lot of topics.

I'll have a look see when I get the chance.
Google
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(Julian @ Aug 9 2017, 12:44 PM) *
QUOTE
2) Gateway: I see laws like that as a gateway toward stricter controls. I say that because such laws....DO typically result in stricter controls. What one might agree to that sounds reasonable can turn into something quite unreasonable after it passes.


I don't buy that in this case, at least not while we're using the driving licence analogy - the fact that the state requires licensing before letting people drive on the public highway hasn't led to ever-tighter and more draconian rules on who can and cannot drive. It's just become a fact, and has stayed more or less the same since it was introduced (at least to my knowledge).


But they are not very analogous, so the analogy is only useful to a certain degree, in a certain context.
No one is attempting to restrict driving unless and until someone has abused their right to drive. No one is attempting to punish lawful drivers nor make it intolerably difficult for them to own a car or use it. No one is suggesting that if a person breaks into my garage and steals my car I should be liable if they use it to commit a crime.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 9 2017, 11:31 AM) *
If you trust people, that could be another reason why not to own a firearm.

True. Assuming one only owns a gun for defensive reasons (not hunting and so forth), if you believe that everyone is trustworthy and good there is no reason to own a gun.

QUOTE
However, it's also very naive.

Yes.

QUOTE
People who CC obviously don't trust others, else there'd be no reason to CC. The whole idea of owning firearms for protection has its roots in distrust.

That's correct.

QUOTE
The question then becomes what's riskier -- owning firearms or not owning firearms?

The answer would depend mostly on where you are (inner city Miami is very different from North Dakota), and certain character traits (for example, suicidal tendencies, or a penchant for violent crime, or extremes of stupidity and/or irresponsibility).

QUOTE
Do untrustworthy people cause more damage than firearm owners?

Untrustworthy people (who may or may not own firearms) cause a lot more damage than trustworthy firearm owners.
Trustworthy firearm owners can actually engage in "damage control" to protect people and save lives. I know a few.

QUOTE
I haven't experienced enough of a rise to justify firearm ownership.
In fact, I haven't noticed any difference whatsoever, other than not having to worry about firearms in the shack -- soon to be an apartment. Will apartment living change my mind? I doubt it, as I've lived in plenty of apartments in the bad parts of cities without needing a firearm for protection. But now I'm a senior with a lot less body mass than in my younger days, so maybe . . . but then there's all that mojo collected along the way.
That's the advantage of age, eh? Can pull Jedi mind tricks without anyone knowing. There also seems to be respect given for having survived, or something like that.


That's great. If you have no need to own a firearm and don't want one, don't have one.
I don't feel any need for one now either.
My husband has a great great many. Particularly in our safes. I'd rather spend the money on something else but it's his hobby. I am glad the boys know a lot about firearms though. Just in case. You never know.
We had a situation a few months back when he insisted I keep a gun in the drawer near my bed (he was away a lot). We also made sure the dogs were kept in the main room instead of sleeping with the boys as they usually are.
But that's resolved now.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 9 2017, 10:49 PM) *
That's great. If you have no need to own a firearm and don't want one, don't have one.
I don't feel any need for one now either.
My husband has a great great many. Particularly in our safes. I'd rather spend the money on something else but it's his hobby. I am glad the boys know a lot about firearms though. Just in case. You never know.
We had a situation a few months back when he insisted I keep a gun in the drawer near my bed (he was away a lot). We also made sure the dogs were kept in the main room instead of sleeping with the boys as they usually are.
But that's resolved now.

Yep, there's the reason for this thread: The firearm industry works hard to convince people that they need the products, but this is often, if not most of the time, wrong. However, it's just doing business, right?

I frankly think it's evil. There ought to be a law, eh? But laws don't work here in the USA because we have the Second Amendment and courts that have been sympathetic to the firearm retailers and manufacturers. That leaves nothing else that can be done other than pointing out how much risk a person takes on by owning a firearm versus the idea of self-protection from something(s).

There are parallels to muscle cars and crotch rockets too. The more powerful the machine, the greater the temptation to give all those horses their heads. See what she'll do, what she's got, ala James T. Kirk. Speed kills, or in physics terms, the increase in kinetic energy lowers survival chances in a crash. Plus your vision narrows the faster you go.

I'm thinking whether there are parallels to music equipment, and all I'm coming up with are blasted ear drums. Might get a blister on your finger, blister on your thumb. Bar brawls while gigging? Some lunatic fan rushing Britney on stage? Drugs, sex, rock 'n roll? Electrocution is probably more common, so have some respect and stop swallowing the mic.

The touchstone might be whether the equipment has ever been used to commit mass murder and suicide. I've not heard of death by decibels, although sound can be weaponized. I have heard music that's horribly depressing, stuff that makes you wanna march off to war, and quit a bit that makes me want to jab pointed sticks in my ears. Oddly enough, it is NOT polka. It is formless jazz and some classical, stuff that goes nowhere and hangs and hangs and hangs . . . and hangs some more. Good Lord, find a freaking tonic! Or gimme back my bullets rolleyes.gif
droop224
Mrs P.

QUOTE
But they are not very analogous, so the analogy is only useful to a certain degree, in a certain context.
No one is attempting to restrict driving unless and until someone has abused their right to drive. No one is attempting to punish lawful drivers nor make it intolerably difficult for them to own a car or use it. No one is suggesting that if a person breaks into my garage and steals my car I should be liable if they use it to commit a crime.

I think its still quite analogous to what you all are talking about. But I think Julian has shown, the culture of American gun ownership outstrips the logic of gun ownership arguments. Hey, I've been in enough gun debates to know.

It boils down to "I want it because it makes me feel safe". There is no real mature or well reasoned argument to gun ownership for a society, because statistically we can see the net harm out weighs the net good. And I'll give you an example of this.

Often in a firearm debate there is an argument of guns being needed to put law abiding citizen on equal footing as criminals. But the criminals are getting their guns from somewhere and that proliferation of firearms is a direct result from having a society where firearms are heavily proliferated.

I think a lot of this comes from intelligent people trying to find logical arguments to a very illogical position.

One of the worst things that someone does when making an analogy to firearms is they make an analogy to an item that does not share the purpose. Let's be clear I can throw a sofa off a 5th floor balcony and kill someone if it lands on them. That doesn't make a sofa dangerous. Same with a car. The car is not dangerous by design, it is dangerous because of its size, speed, and mobility.

I've said and I continue to say that the firearm's purpose is to kill or maim. And hand guns are specialized for concealment and for killing other humans. That's what makes firearms dangerous, not their improper usage, but their proper usage.

When someone kills or maims with a firearm someone with the gun, that is a misuse of the firearm purpose. If I take a sofa and throw it off the balcony or take a car and drive it into a crowd, that is not what those items were made to do. If I take a gun and go kill something or someone, that's exactly what it is made to do. A firearm, by design is a weapon, and in these debates there is often an analogy made to something not a weapon that is used as a weapon.

Chainsaws are dangerous, but they are not weapons. Pillows are not dangerous, but can be used as weapons. Firearms are weapons.

QUOTE
No one is attempting to restrict driving unless and until someone has abused their right to drive. No one is attempting to punish lawful drivers nor make it intolerably difficult for them to own a car or use it. No one is suggesting that if a person breaks into my garage and steals my car I should be liable if they use it to commit a crime.
The most I can say is that you are offering a opinioned characterization. Do I have to pay for a license? Yes. That is restrictive. The fact that I have to get a license at all can be characterized as a restriction. Having to renew can be seen as a restriction. Making me follow road signs can be characterized. Allowing police to detain people driving for something as simple as say a broken taillight or changing lanes without putting on a blinker, could be seen as restrictive.

OR

It can be characterized as making laws and having people follow laws.

I recall many of these debates Mrs P and some of your own admissions in your personal handling and security of a firearm. My characterization of what you call "restrictions" were simply trying to promote responsibility and respect for firearms by gun owners. For instance, in the debate were gun owners would be held liable it was argued that we should make laws that require gun owners to secure guns in a safe, which you found, as you said, incredibly restrictive. And if it could be proven that you did not properly secure the gun, then you would be held liable.

The purpose is so that gun owners would think about more than themselves, but also the danger to society that guns present when stolen. People, except in EXTREMELY rare cases, do not steal cars to go kill a person. However, a stolen gun is likely to be used to perpetuate a crime against another person.

I'm not trying to rehash the debate, but merely illustrate how gun owners tend to like to perceive and characterize things. Since we know the lethality and purpose of a firearm is to maim and kill, asking gun owners to elevate the securing of firearms beyond leaving them on the kitchen counter is seen as waaaaaaaaay too restrictive.

Julian

One thing I would add to the idea of cultural influence of gun ownership is that it does not stem from the Constitution or founders intent. It is a commercially driven agenda that creates the lust for guns... and the boogey man reasons why someone needs a gun. The people that love the NRA, generally don't love the ACLU. The love for firearms and the general culture that goes along with that is nurtured by financial interests at the cost of a lot of American lives.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(droop224 @ Aug 10 2017, 09:44 PM) *
I recall many of these debates Mrs P and some of your own admissions in your personal handling and security of a firearm. My characterization of what you call "restrictions" were simply trying to promote responsibility and respect for firearms by gun owners. For instance, in the debate were gun owners would be held liable it was argued that we should make laws that require gun owners to secure guns in a safe, which you found, as you said, incredibly restrictive. And if it could be proven that you did not properly secure the gun, then you would be held liable.


Your definition of "properly securing" the gun would make the gun unusable to me as a defensive weapon. If a person (or persons) break into my home with the intent to do harm, a gun locked up in a safe is not likely to be accessible in time. This is a person breaking into my home. Next thing that Captain Obvious would point out: Guns can still be stolen in their safes. To which you responded that it would have to be a great large safe bolted to the ground....making the legal ownership of a firearm essentially impossible for renters or anyone without a great deal of money. Note that making a firearm impossible for the owner to use as a defensive weapon in his or her own home, and impossible to own at all for most law-abiding people, is "logical" and "responsible" and completely reasonable in your estimation.

Yes, I remember this ridiculous debate.
There's actually a benefit to feeling safe. The benefit is so great, people pay a good deal of money to live in areas of low crime and take their kids to schools where they are safe. Famous people who are against gun ownership still seem to have no compunctions about employing armed guards to protect them. Affluent folks live in gated communities with armed guards that keep the "riff raff" out. Great Britain has outlawed handguns, and I've read that they have now outlawed the selling of large knives (might be an age restriction there, not sure about that law) and are considering outlawing strong cleaning products next (due to acid attacks). Yet if the rumor is true, George Clooney (anti-gun enthusiast) is leaving and moving back to the US due to security concerns.

I should mention now that I didn't describe the "situation" very well above.
It's sensitive so I didn't want to go into it, but rereading makes it sound as though the situation was my husband wanted me to keep a gun by my bedside. To clarify, we had a mentally ill unstable person in the area and were warned that this person had the potential for violent tendencies. And we were on a short list of potential targets. There was, at the time, no hard evidence to put him away but enough evidence to be concerned for the safety of our family. My husband did not overreact there. As I said, the situation has since been resolved.

At any rate, you go on with your grandstanding soapbox there Droop.
droop224
QUOTE(Mrs P)
At any rate, you go on with your grandstanding soapbox there Droop.


I mean, dam, goddam, what I say to make you have such a reaction? w00t.gif I feel like you just flipped me off. I feel like you just sent me a "screw you and have a nice day!" (in your mind are you going "pretty much" wink2.gif ) I'd say Ol Captain Obvious would be more careful, but we know I'd be lying.

Its OK its always a touchy subject with you and DTOM(you still around out there champ), we all have our debate topic buttons, I guess.

QUOTE
Your definition of "properly securing" the gun would make the gun unusable to me as a defensive weapon. If a person (or persons) break into my home with the intent to do harm, a gun locked up in a safe is not likely to be accessible in time. This is a person breaking into my home. Next thing that Captain Obvious would point out: Guns can still be stolen in their safes. To which you responded that it would have to be a great large safe bolted to the ground....making the legal ownership of a firearm essentially impossible for renters or anyone without a great deal of money. Note that making a firearm impossible for the owner to use as a defensive weapon in his or her own home, and impossible to own at all for most law-abiding people, is "logical" and "responsible" and completely reasonable in your estimation.
Like I said, no need to rehash the debate, the conditions of what you say are true. But the "characterization", a point you didn't address, is wrong.

Back to the vehicle, doesn't have to be a vehicle, but it serves. Generally upon buying a car there are things you HAVE to pay for. Depending on where you live these things can range from insurance, safety test fee, emission test fee, registration fee, etc. Some of these things are one time some may be reoccurring. People don't generally characterize these extra costs as "restrictions" on car ownership. These are just the added cost of vehicle ownership.

However, when in a debate with gun owners almost anything required of the them beyond purchasing a gun, is characterized as a restriction. Lets look at yours.

1. Your definition of "properly securing" the gun would make the gun unusable to me as a defensive weapon. If a person (or persons) break into my home with the intent to do harm, a gun locked up in a safe is not likely to be accessible in time.

Not really, I admit that it is less accessible than under your pillow or in you night stand, but a safe (bolted to a floor or wall) shouldn't require more that 15-30 second more.

2. Next thing that Captain Obvious would point out: Guns can still be stolen in their safes. To which you responded that it would have to be a great large safe bolted to the ground....making the legal ownership of a firearm essentially impossible for renters or anyone without a great deal of money.

A great deal of money? Surely an additional cost, but define a great deal of money. I doubt it cost more than the gun.

3.Note that making a firearm impossible for the owner to use as a defensive weapon in his or her own home, and impossible to own at all for most law-abiding people, is "logical" and "responsible" and completely reasonable in your estimation.

Note your characterizations of the idea. A law that would require gun owners to store their gun in a safe became a restriction that made it "impossible" to use in a defensive situation and "impossible" for most Americans to own.

And here is the most important thing I've come to understand, in your mind (and like minded gun owners) they are both very very true characterizations. In your mind...

In your mind I imagine that you imagine:

It's 2 AM and there is a noise coming from the doorway. You open your eyes to an intruder staring down at you. Its the neighborhood rapist and the cookies he wants aren't chocolate chip. But you are no ordinary prey, quickly you reach into your nightstand for "the great equalizer".. the intruder lunges for you but he is too slow... Bang!! Bang!! Thank God for your Gun

or

It's 2 AM and there is a noise coming from downstairs, you go to investigate, what are the kids doing up this time of morning. Only to find the masked intruder rummaging through your refrigerator. He sees you and off you run like a cheetah with him in hot pursuit. You scramble upstairs and he dives stretching out his hand to clip you at the ankles, causing you to trip and fall. Quickly, you scramble on all fours and back up to your feet running into your room for the safety of "the great equalizer". As you run through the doorway you slam the door on the intruder, buying yourself a couple extra seconds. You slide under the bed with an out stretched hand and *thunk* ... "What the f..." a safe, who put a safe where my gun... too late the intruder grabs you by your ankles pulls you from under the bed, grabs you by the hair and begins to smash your head into the ground... Darkness begins to creep in, but not before your last defiant cry out to the heavens. "Screw you Droop!! Screw you, your soap box, your high horse, and your dam imaginary safe law!!" laugh.gif

And in your mind, the cost, oh my Good GAAAWD, the COST of installing a safe that would need to be bolted to a floor or wall is simply astronomical. Only the wealthiest of us would be able to afford to install a safe for a gun. This would cost thousands upon thousands of dollars. People would have to choose between a gun safe and food. "What's the point of a gun, if I'm going to die from starvation?!?! Huh, Captain Obvious, riddle me that."

Look I know you can tell that I chuckle at what I imagine to be your imagination. I really do, I had a good time with writing the above, but there is a serious possibility of harm in ones house and a gun would be useful. But you can scour the news and you will see that for every time a homeowner had defended themselves with only 10 seconds between life or death, I can show you 5 to 10 stories (maybe more) where a gun was used accidently or unintentionally.

QUOTE
I should mention now that I didn't describe the "situation" very well above.
It's sensitive so I didn't want to go into it, but rereading makes it sound as though the situation was my husband wanted me to keep a gun by my bedside. To clarify, we had a mentally ill unstable person in the area and were warned that this person had the potential for violent tendencies. And we were on a short list of potential targets. There was, at the time, no hard evidence to put him away but enough evidence to be concerned for the safety of our family. My husband did not overreact there. As I said, the situation has since been resolved.
Whatever, you say. Sensitive subject are not good for debate anyway. Because you feel some kind of a way and you can't debate feelings in my experience.


Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE
But you can scour the news and you will see that for every time a homeowner had defended themselves with only 10 seconds between life or death, I can show you 5 to 10 stories (maybe more) where a gun was used accidently or unintentionally.


Because "crime didn't happen" doesn't typically make the news.
But "this idiot shot his testicles off when he was cleaning his gun!" does.

And it was a double bird, Droop. Yep. Two middle fingers. Take dat. Bam bam. wink.gif
laugh.gif
flowers.gif
AuthorMusician
When I was 10 years old, 1962 thereabout, a mentally ill guy murdered his mother about half a block away. Nobody went and got a gun for self-protection, protecting their families, or any other currently employed reason for getting a firearm as a result of crime.

Today there are runs on firearm dealers if there's even a slight possibility of gun control, and then when the perceived threat goes away, firearm sales go down so far that the industry worries.

Huh, crime doesn't seem to be the driving force in firearm ownership. It looks more like the fear of losing something to buy does. Another possibility is that people buying firearms because someone like Obama gets elected are speculating that firearm control laws will make the value of the objects rise.

Yeah, well, I don't think it's anything more than having fewer toys to pursuit in a warped world of marketing manipulations. The reason I think this way is that the same thing is done with guitars, from the marketing manipulation angle. Those who fall into the trap have no qualms paying thousands of dollars more for features that cost a whole lot less to manufacture.

Another example is motorcycles, but this has more to do with product mystique and brand loyalty. That's why Harley Davidson gets away with charging so much for their rides and Indian gets to follow in those footsteps. Meanwhile, rice burners perform better and are more reliable, which happens a lot with guitars too -- the foreign-built ones cost a lot less and perform, if not better, then dang close to the same.

So is it self-defense or responding to marketing that prompts a firearm purchase? Well, do you get the boogie-woogie fever over the purchase? If so, it's likely marketing. Congratulations on being an average human being and what commerce often depends upon -- suckers.

On the other hand, do you admire the product because it is designed well, manufactured well, fits your actual needs (as opposed to something like over-compensation for personal deficiencies), and has a fair price? Congratulations, you just kept the market more honest. Your reward is having a great product and more money with which to do other stuff, thus enriching your life. Also avoiding the debt traps that can keep you employed where you'd rather not be (I owe I owe, it's off to work I go).

Of course, if the firearm purchase is mostly to impress your friends (bragging rights), then you're a fool. You just increased your chances to be killed/maimed and those of your family because you really don't have squat otherwise. You'd be far better off working on the core problems instead, i.e., figure out who you are, what you've got, and where you can go with what you've got. I'm not talking material goods here but what's inside a human being.

It doesn't cost very much and lasts a long time -- as in a lifetime, possibly beyond.
AuthorMusician
Yesterday I visited one of our friendly local pawn shops to sell a couple of old, unused guitars and an acoustic amp that's just too heavy for me to lug around any longer. Got about 30 cents on the dollar, which isn't bad for this kind of trading.

While having a good time with the owner and Rusty, hired help, this guy from Denver asked about waiting periods for the firearms. There's no waiting period now, just background check, and the potential customer didn't seem to like that idea. So I piped up in my usual sarcastic manner that there's no background check with guitars. "They don't care who you are or what you've done, just that you be honest while playing -- and you get a whole lot more out of the relationship!" Rusty laughed, the owner smiled, and the potential customer seemed confused.

This made me think later about the differences in gun shop owners/help and pawn shop owners/help. With gun shops, there seems to be a need to put on some kind of machismo act, whereas pawn shop owners have no act. Or at least the ones I've known. They're not quite as cool as Ray Charles in The Blues Brothers (first one), but still cool about what a guitar means in the open marketplace.

Yeah yeah, you've got a history with the object, but what counts is what the object will mean to the next owner. It makes perfect sense to me, and that's exactly how the firearms are treated in pawn-shop land. You can substitute anything else -- wedding rings, silver flatware sets, tool chests, knick-knacks and paddy whacks and dog bones -- it's all the same kind of transaction. Whatever you're selling isn't worth what you think, and the business has to make a profit on what it sells.

Simple, right? So why does selling firearms in gun stores require an act of machismo? I suppose it has to do with appealing to emotions, and that goes on in any store selling new stuff. The forms will vary, but it boils down to emotion. This car will get you laid, this dress will make you a princess (guessing here), this guitar will get you laid (there's redundancy with guys), this gum will double your pleasure AND your fun!

What will buying a firearm do for you, make you a real man/woman? Powerful? Dangerous? Sexy? Hey, guitars can do that too, but it takes more work than with firearms. You know, to sound powerful, dangerous and sexy. Lets call it the state of being powdangsexy.

Lets see, a Corvette is powdangsexy. A Smartcar is not. Fender Strat, yes. Rock Star game controller, no -- but cute. A .38 Special, not any longer, assault rifle yes. Sig anything, oh yeah baby, oh yeahhhhhh. Or maybe the bedazzle has faded, like with Uzi.

Anyway, it's best to know why you're buying what you're buying. Also what will be required to reach the state of powdangsexy, at least the starting steps. An extra special place to be is seeing yourself as the funny little creature you are, even while being powdangsexy. A little humility goes a long way.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 29 2017, 05:23 AM) *
Simple, right? So why does selling firearms in gun stores require an act of machismo?


What makes you think that? How many firearms stores have you been in?
In my experience, firearms stores are friendly and professional. Often the owners are former law enforcement or military.

Some people like to play the guitar AND like firearms. And boats. And....a bunch of diving and spearfishing stuff. Ect.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 29 2017, 09:15 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 29 2017, 05:23 AM) *
Simple, right? So why does selling firearms in gun stores require an act of machismo?


What makes you think that? How many firearms stores have you been in?
In my experience, firearms stores are friendly and professional. Often the owners are former law enforcement or military.

Some people like to play the guitar AND like firearms. And boats. And....a bunch of diving and spearfishing stuff. Ect.

I grew up in a town with an actual gun store, as opposed to the drug stores in Memphis that sold them and the sporting goods stores in Colorado Springs. It sold firearms to hunters and did its own gunsmithing. Watching the owner at his lathe is a strong childhood memory. I've been in about half a dozen gun stores in this area, probably a few dozen more in others since my youth. So I think this way from observations during those experiences.

Why are you so defensive on how machismo is used to sell firearms? It's very obvious to me and does have a military sense to it, something you might be unaware of, like the smell of a room in which you spend a lot of time. But the point is how this is used in sales as an appeal to emotion. So maybe you're not aware of how this is used in sales? Seems so, but then you're a female customer, and the machismo may not work, so it isn't used on you.

A similar thing happens with guitars -- the sales pitch changes with females, more toward the art of music than the getting-laid stuff. Also popularity, which is a broader thing than sex. Keep in mind that a lot of sales involves subtle nudges rather than obvious stuff, and that being nice during the process is indeed a part of the whole. Another rather large part is reading customers and appealing to what they have literally told the sales person in word and action, of which the customer is often not aware.

Your point about liking various things is noted, but it is also irrelevant. Sales pitches are used no matter what your interests are.

Still, the pawn shop experience is less pressured than retail for both the seller and the buyer. I'm pretty sure this is because pressure isn't required, as customers for pawn shop goods are looking for cheaper stuff only. They don't care so much about the decision to go this or that way, more that the item is still usable. In effect, the decision to buy has already been made, so now the issue is price. It's also more possible to dicker on price in pawn shops than retail.

Heh, compare the overall look/feel of a pawn shop to a retail store. That is the most obvious display of the difference.

Sidebar: Lydia is now interested in using pawn shops as a means to recoup costs on her Lego sets that have become an interest. I frankly don't know if Legos are sold/bought in pawn shops, so I suggested she do a few phone calls to find out. I like them for music stuff because I don't have to deal with packing/shipping and buyers' complaints, ala online selling. I figure the returns are about 10-15% less with pawn shops, well worth the loss when compared to the reduced aggravation.

And the fact remains that background checks are not necessary, or even desirable, when buying a guitar or any musical instrument. I wonder if the guy from Denver has thought about it -- his look of utter discombobulation makes me think, yes, probably. I pegged him for a flute guy right off. So did Rusty. Funny how that nose gets developed from either performing or sales. I guess performing is a form of sales, huh?
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 29 2017, 10:42 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 29 2017, 09:15 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 29 2017, 05:23 AM) *
Simple, right? So why does selling firearms in gun stores require an act of machismo?


What makes you think that? How many firearms stores have you been in?
In my experience, firearms stores are friendly and professional. Often the owners are former law enforcement or military.

Some people like to play the guitar AND like firearms. And boats. And....a bunch of diving and spearfishing stuff. Ect.

I grew up in a town with an actual gun store, as opposed to the drug stores in Memphis that sold them and the sporting goods stores in Colorado Springs. It sold firearms to hunters and did its own gunsmithing. Watching the owner at his lathe is a strong childhood memory. I've been in about half a dozen gun stores in this area, probably a few dozen more in others since my youth. So I think this way from observations during those experiences.


Great. Those places are still around. How about breakfast at Kiffney's? smile.gif

QUOTE
Why are you so defensive on how machismo is used to sell firearms?

Because of the way you wrote the statement. Why do pawn shops work "(this way...which you imply is favorable)" and gun shop sales "require an act of machismo" (which you imply isn't favorable). I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this statement, but it doesn't sound complimentary. And the pawn shops I've been in aren't the place I'd choose to buy merchandise. But I'm not going to paint my experience as the only one, nor my observations as the rule of how all pawn shops work. In fact, I accept your observations and note that my experience is most likely not accurate...because you've been to more pawn shops than I have by the sound of things (I've been to very few).

QUOTE
It's very obvious to me and does have a military sense to it, something you might be unaware of, like the smell of a room in which you spend a lot of time. But the point is how this is used in sales as an appeal to emotion. So maybe you're not aware of how this is used in sales? Seems so, but then you're a female customer, and the machismo may not work, so it isn't used on you.
A similar thing happens with guitars -- the sales pitch changes with females, more toward the art of music than the getting-laid stuff. Also popularity, which is a broader thing than sex. Keep in mind that a lot of sales involves subtle nudges rather than obvious stuff, and that being nice during the process is indeed a part of the whole. Another rather large part is reading customers and appealing to what they have literally told the sales person in word and action, of which the customer is often not aware.


But firearms have different qualities too, and that will interest a person who is very proficient with firearms. My spouse is expert marksman. He was just at a shooting competition out of state this weekend and got first place. It was a speed shooting competition with different variables ("friendlies" jump out and so forth, so the shooting has to be fast, accurate, and very discriminate). At any rate, his discernment will be different from a novice who goes into the store. And the same thing might apply to a guitar. Novice goes in and has no idea what to buy, so the salesperson talks about what a chick magnet a guitar is. An experienced musician goes in for a different reason.

QUOTE
Sidebar: Lydia is now interested in using pawn shops as a means to recoup costs on her Lego sets that have become an interest. I frankly don't know if Legos are sold/bought in pawn shops, so I suggested she do a few phone calls to find out. I like them for music stuff because I don't have to deal with packing/shipping and buyers' complaints, ala online selling. I figure the returns are about 10-15% less with pawn shops, well worth the loss when compared to the reduced aggravation.


She might want to try Craig's list. I know little tykes stuff and thomas the tank engine used to see really well on that (though my experience was a long while ago). Legos might also.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 30 2017, 09:21 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 29 2017, 10:42 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 29 2017, 09:15 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 29 2017, 05:23 AM) *
Simple, right? So why does selling firearms in gun stores require an act of machismo?


What makes you think that? How many firearms stores have you been in?
In my experience, firearms stores are friendly and professional. Often the owners are former law enforcement or military.

Some people like to play the guitar AND like firearms. And boats. And....a bunch of diving and spearfishing stuff. Ect.

I grew up in a town with an actual gun store, as opposed to the drug stores in Memphis that sold them and the sporting goods stores in Colorado Springs. It sold firearms to hunters and did its own gunsmithing. Watching the owner at his lathe is a strong childhood memory. I've been in about half a dozen gun stores in this area, probably a few dozen more in others since my youth. So I think this way from observations during those experiences.


Great. Those places are still around. How about breakfast at Kiffney's? smile.gif

QUOTE
Why are you so defensive on how machismo is used to sell firearms?

Because of the way you wrote the statement. Why do pawn shops work "(this way...which you imply is favorable)" and gun shop sales "require an act of machismo" (which you imply isn't favorable). I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this statement, but it doesn't sound complimentary. And the pawn shops I've been in aren't the place I'd choose to buy merchandise. But I'm not going to paint my experience as the only one, nor my observations as the rule of how all pawn shops work. In fact, I accept your observations and note that my experience is most likely not accurate...because you've been to more pawn shops than I have by the sound of things (I've been to very few).

QUOTE
It's very obvious to me and does have a military sense to it, something you might be unaware of, like the smell of a room in which you spend a lot of time. But the point is how this is used in sales as an appeal to emotion. So maybe you're not aware of how this is used in sales? Seems so, but then you're a female customer, and the machismo may not work, so it isn't used on you.
A similar thing happens with guitars -- the sales pitch changes with females, more toward the art of music than the getting-laid stuff. Also popularity, which is a broader thing than sex. Keep in mind that a lot of sales involves subtle nudges rather than obvious stuff, and that being nice during the process is indeed a part of the whole. Another rather large part is reading customers and appealing to what they have literally told the sales person in word and action, of which the customer is often not aware.


But firearms have different qualities too, and that will interest a person who is very proficient with firearms. My spouse is expert marksman. He was just at a shooting competition out of state this weekend and got first place. It was a speed shooting competition with different variables ("friendlies" jump out and so forth, so the shooting has to be fast, accurate, and very discriminate). At any rate, his discernment will be different from a novice who goes into the store. And the same thing might apply to a guitar. Novice goes in and has no idea what to buy, so the salesperson talks about what a chick magnet a guitar is. An experienced musician goes in for a different reason.

QUOTE
Sidebar: Lydia is now interested in using pawn shops as a means to recoup costs on her Lego sets that have become an interest. I frankly don't know if Legos are sold/bought in pawn shops, so I suggested she do a few phone calls to find out. I like them for music stuff because I don't have to deal with packing/shipping and buyers' complaints, ala online selling. I figure the returns are about 10-15% less with pawn shops, well worth the loss when compared to the reduced aggravation.


She might want to try Craig's list. I know little tykes stuff and thomas the tank engine used to see really well on that (though my experience was a long while ago). Legos might also.

Ah, I get it, but the overall thing is that pawn shops are different from retail stores, and it doesn't matter what's being sold. I focused on gun shop retail due to the thread subject.

Positive or negative? Well, pawn shops meet my needs for turning over musical instruments, and they deal in firearms a lot. Gun shops deal in firearms, but unless located as a section in a Memphis drug store or a CS sporting goods store, that's pretty much it. We have a custom gun shop in town now, so I might go in there to scope it out. I am curious as to how custom the guns are and what they'd cost.

I would say that I've possibly been to many places you have not. I'm older (pretty sure of that) and have a high degree of curiosity and wanderlust. I find even a ride in an ambulance to be interesting to my writer's eye. On the other hand, you've been to a lot of places I have not. It's how this existence works. We are all centers of our unique universes, some more or less unique than others.

Craig's List has a lot of downsides to it, mostly because it has become risky over the years. But Lydia shares my distaste for selling online and sales in general, although nobody gets away with never selling anything. She still feels guilt about it, but I'm long past that stage. Maybe that's why I'm such a horrible customer in retail spaces? It was one of the things that made me a good systems admin back in my day, nailing down those vendor reps (sales staff) in their pitches and outright lies. Do not try to bee-ess a bee-esser, not ever!

I admit to having deep contempt for a lot of sales people, especially the flim-flam artists. But instead of going for my guns, I use sarcasm and role-playing to mess with them, which I find entertaining. There's also a chance of influencing people this way.

And as I've described, I messed with a potential firearm customer's head in a pawn shop. Now I'm thinking that his instrument should be a National Resophonic or Dobro set up for slide -- the guy had this thing about him that felt untempered, musically speaking. For reference, pianos are tempered. Violins are not, as you need to know where the notes are located on an unmarked fingerboard. Wind instruments have both characteristics, tempered and untempered, as do fretted guitars for advanced players. If you can mess with the notes (bending), it's semi-tempered. If you have to mess with the notes to play at all, untempered. If you press down on piano/organ keys, it's tempered. You have no choices, that's the freaking note -- live with it.

Anyway, it is a lot harder to sell crap to experienced customers, hands down. My overall point is that people like my Denver dude can be suckered into buying something they 1) don't need, and 2) will likely turn out badly. In this sense, pawn shops tend to be more positive than retail, since the pawn shop has less need to sell anything to anybody, ergo less sales pressure on customers. Also, as noted, customers tend to know exactly what they want ahead of time.

Thought of another big difference -- pawn shop deals tend to be cash only, no credit. Ah, another one -- it's also common that pawn shops will accept trades, as opposed to trade-ins. This for that, rather than 15% off. There is of course the risk of the goods being stolen, and that brings in another wrinkle to an already long-in-the-tooth commerce model.

So if you're local to the pawn shop, you get better deals. You're more of a person and less of a number.

Holy harmonies Bossman, that Denver guy might have been hoping for no background check on a firearm purchase! Oh dog man, get a guitar instead. It's a lot harder to kill anyone with a guitar, including yourself. And you might get laid! Might also find a reason to live, if that's where it was going. Works for me, and that's the dag-nabbed truth.

Curmudgeon
Does it make sense to avoid firearms and places where they are fired in order to not be shot?

I had two brothers. The oldest owned a gun...

Growing up, my mother woke my older brother (the one who did not own a gun) and asked him, "Who did you bring home last night?"

After a brief conversation, my older brother got out of bed, grabbed the oldest brother's rifle and led a parade down the stairs where he woke the sleeping man with the rifle barrel... At that point, my mother finally believed my brother's reply that he had brought no one home and phoned the police...

The responding policeman explained that while the man was trespassing, had he been armed with his own gun, he could have shot us all and claimed self defense. "If you're going to point a gun at someone, you should at least take the safety off." was his next advice...

I have never fired a gun. At 71, I don't want to start learning a trade that I suspect that I would be useless at.

I have had too many crazy gun owners that I worked with to repeat their stories again, but...

"It was nice of my wife to call in and mention that I outdrew Matt Dillon and I would have to buy her a new television before I came to work.", "Grandma should have checked the oven before preheating it. I've always kept a loaded gun in the oven." and "There is no place in my home that I can't reach out either hand and pick up a loaded gun. Drop by the house anytime and I'll demonstrate." are three of the punchlines that kept me from visiting co-worker's homes...

And after the executor had removed all the working firearms from my brother-in-law's house, I discovered that the Ruger pistol that had been left next to the front door to scare off solicitor's was actually a cap gun.

I've tasted venison enough to suspect that it was properly prepared everytime, but still tasted like something I didn't want a second bite of.
Looms
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jul 17 2017, 09:58 AM) *
Two news reports that came back-to-back recently have revealed why you might not want to own a firearm.

The first is the father who shot his son dead at a supposedly safe indoor range when a hot shell allegedly bounced off the wall and fell into his shirt, then he used his hand holding the pistol to get the shell out, and that resulted with him shooting his son in the jugular vein. A few moments later his son, 14 years old, died.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/04/us/florida-f...-son/index.html

You ride motorcycles.

QUOTE
The second is a guy getting shot in the leg at a Denver gun show.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denver-man-acc...anner-gun-show/


YOU ride motorcycles.

QUOTE
Firearm enthusiasts rationalize these incidents away by claiming they should never have happened if the firearms had been handled correctly, basically that guns don't kill, people do.

Same can be said for most traffic injuries and fatalities. Vehicles don't kill, drivers do.

So is that good enough for you? Or does it make sense to avoid firearms and places where they are fired in order to not be shot? Does your need to feel secure outweigh the risks involved in owning firearms?

Other examples come to mind, some exactly the same and others that are stranger, such as the camper not too far from here being killed by a stray bullet. The round came from an unsupervised range about a third of a mile away, which has also been the starting place for two fires this year.

I guess that's one reason they're called firearms, but I understand that exploding targets were involved. Hey, lets go into wildfire areas and start some -- ought to be fun!

Reminder: This is Casual Conversation, a place where points don't have to be made but where education can happen. My purpose is to encourage education on the risks of firearm ownership, especially those that are usually ignored. Like getting shot at a gun show in Denver or losing your child due to a freaking hot shell falling into your shirt -- one of the major reasons I sold my Glock 9mm. It did that all the time. There were several other reasons as well. I no longer own a firearm, have no plans to own them in the future, and I have my reasons.


Well, in that case...YOU RIDE MOTORCYCLES!!!
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Looms @ Sep 9 2017, 12:11 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jul 17 2017, 09:58 AM) *
Two news reports that came back-to-back recently have revealed why you might not want to own a firearm.

The first is the father who shot his son dead at a supposedly safe indoor range when a hot shell allegedly bounced off the wall and fell into his shirt, then he used his hand holding the pistol to get the shell out, and that resulted with him shooting his son in the jugular vein. A few moments later his son, 14 years old, died.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/04/us/florida-f...-son/index.html

You ride motorcycles.

QUOTE
The second is a guy getting shot in the leg at a Denver gun show.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denver-man-acc...anner-gun-show/


YOU ride motorcycles.

QUOTE
Firearm enthusiasts rationalize these incidents away by claiming they should never have happened if the firearms had been handled correctly, basically that guns don't kill, people do.

Same can be said for most traffic injuries and fatalities. Vehicles don't kill, drivers do.

So is that good enough for you? Or does it make sense to avoid firearms and places where they are fired in order to not be shot? Does your need to feel secure outweigh the risks involved in owning firearms?

Other examples come to mind, some exactly the same and others that are stranger, such as the camper not too far from here being killed by a stray bullet. The round came from an unsupervised range about a third of a mile away, which has also been the starting place for two fires this year.

I guess that's one reason they're called firearms, but I understand that exploding targets were involved. Hey, lets go into wildfire areas and start some -- ought to be fun!

Reminder: This is Casual Conversation, a place where points don't have to be made but where education can happen. My purpose is to encourage education on the risks of firearm ownership, especially those that are usually ignored. Like getting shot at a gun show in Denver or losing your child due to a freaking hot shell falling into your shirt -- one of the major reasons I sold my Glock 9mm. It did that all the time. There were several other reasons as well. I no longer own a firearm, have no plans to own them in the future, and I have my reasons.


Well, in that case...YOU RIDE MOTORCYCLES!!!

Correction: I have stopped riding motorcycles, as that activity carries too much risk while the medical insurance doesn't cover a whole lot of anything. I'm also older now, senior-citizen class older. It is a younger man's sport.

However, riding motorcycles has a huge difference from owning firearms, and that involves bringing in risk for others. The only person you're going to hurt on a motorcycle is yourself in the vast majority of cases. Owning firearms brings risk to the entire family, neighbors, co-workers, fellow students and so on, plus yourself.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 10 2017, 03:42 AM) *
However, riding motorcycles has a huge difference from owning firearms, and that involves bringing in risk for others. The only person you're going to hurt on a motorcycle is yourself in the vast majority of cases. Owning firearms brings risk to the entire family, neighbors, co-workers, fellow students and so on, plus yourself.


The risk is comparatively low. I know very few people who have ever had an injury from a gun (and the ones that come to mind were in actual shootouts...where NOT having a weapon would have been comparatively more dangerous). However, every single person I can think of who rode a motorcycle for any real length of time was seriously injured on it.

You mentioned above about the mental case killing his family in the home...yet, folks in the 'hood didn't see a reason to pack heat over it.
I didn't say anything then, but I guess I'll give two scenarios now:

1) "Hey there's a mental case who lives down the street and he killed his family!"

is much different from

2) "Hey there's a mental case who lives down the street and, guess what.... you're on the short list of people he wants to see harmed!"

People who don't react to the first typically turn out okay, but people who don't react to the second don't as often.
There's a reason wolves are cunning and sharp of tooth (the ones that weren't didn't make it), and rabbits are swift and birth lots and lots of litters (the species that didn't didn't make it).

At any rate,
Some comic relief. Thought this was priceless. laugh.gif

https://i.redd.it/iqt5nt1lbqkz.jpg
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 10 2017, 08:09 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 10 2017, 03:42 AM) *
However, riding motorcycles has a huge difference from owning firearms, and that involves bringing in risk for others. The only person you're going to hurt on a motorcycle is yourself in the vast majority of cases. Owning firearms brings risk to the entire family, neighbors, co-workers, fellow students and so on, plus yourself.


The risk is comparatively low. I know very few people who have ever had an injury from a gun (and the ones that come to mind were in actual shootouts...where NOT having a weapon would have been comparatively more dangerous). However, every single person I can think of who rode a motorcycle for any real length of time was seriously injured on it.

You mentioned above about the mental case killing his family in the home...yet, folks in the 'hood didn't see a reason to pack heat over it.
I didn't say anything then, but I guess I'll give two scenarios now:

1) "Hey there's a mental case who lives down the street and he killed his family!"

is much different from

2) "Hey there's a mental case who lives down the street and, guess what.... you're on the short list of people he wants to see harmed!"

People who don't react to the first typically turn out okay, but people who don't react to the second don't as often.
There's a reason wolves are cunning and sharp of tooth (the ones that weren't didn't make it), and rabbits are swift and birth lots and lots of litters (the species that didn't didn't make it).

At any rate,
Some comic relief. Thought this was priceless. laugh.gif

https://i.redd.it/iqt5nt1lbqkz.jpg

Indeed, the risk of riding motorcycle is different from the risk of owning firearms. I'm not sure how you determine serious injury or how extensive your personal observations are, but it does bring back the motorcycle adage:

It's not a matter of if but when.

Here are a few differences from my POV:

Nobody steals motorcycles to commit crime. The act of stealing a motorcycle is itself a crime, but they aren't used in armed holdups, for example, unless as a getaway vehicle.

No mass murder has ever been done using a motorcycle.

No families have experienced murder/suicide via the use of a motorcycle.

Firearms are used more often in suicides than motorcycles. It's a matter of effectiveness and avoidance of physical pain, IMO.

My personal experience with motorcycles involves hundreds of thousands of miles riding, one broken clavicle, one broken wrist, one broken ankle, two concussions similar to what I got while playing high school football (center/center linebacker). I grew up with the helmet law in Minnesota, and the skull bucket saved my tush twice. Riding without a helmet was to me very uncomfortable for the noise and cold.

But of course my personal experience isn't an indication of risk. It'd take studies of many motorcycle riders to do that, and here's where the concepts intersect. Risk studies are needed to put a finer point on the concept of risk in any particular activity, and a lot have been published on the risk of riding motorcycle. More than on the risk of firearm ownership? That I don't know. But I do know that federal funding for these studies on firearm ownership has been dropped due to what firearm enthusiasts, led by the NRA, believe to be unreliable conclusions.

Yes, and there are a lot of motorcycle riders who eschew the use of helmets on similar grounds. The are referred to as organ donors among the helmet-wearing riders.

Here's something to think about, Mrs. P: You know a lot of firearm owners who have been trained in their use, probably a lot more than MC riders trained to ride safely. This could account for the lower risk that you've observed, being that safely handling firearms is not as complex as riding MC safely in traffic. I'm pretty sure of this, as I've done both and can compare.

However, there remains the inherent intent of either machine: One is for transportation; the other is for killing. An example: Locked up firearms were taken from their owner and used in the Sandy Hook mass murder. The owner herself was killed via the use of her own firearm.

Has this ever happened with motorcycles locked up in a garage? Not that I know of, so the risk of that is quite low with MC than with firearms.

Here's something I've observed: Lots of MC riders, especially those with Harleys, trailer their scooters to rallies. I can understand that, having been a Harley mechanic and knowing how unreliable they are, or were. This was back in the 1970s. The new ones are said to be better, so that leaves the discomfort of riding long distances. Is there something similar with firearms?

If there is, I don't see it. Handling firearms is the same no matter what -- there's nothing like an F-150 to take away the risk of machine failure or usage discomfort. This leaves not owning firearms at all, which can also be said about riding motorcycles. To eliminate risk, don't do the risky business.

And of course if you decide to do the risky business, face that risk head-on. Don't try to make false comparisons or reduce the reality in your own head. On an MC, that leads to disaster for the rider. With firearms, it leads to disaster for users and others, and the others usually have no say in the decision to own firearms.

It's not a matter of if but when, so be prepared and know that you're a fallible human being with a fallible piece of machinery. I think this is a wise way to approach MCs, firearms, cars, trucks, furnaces, electrical devices -- pretty much anything having to do with humans and machines.
lo rez
Motorcycles: Nature's Killing Machines
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(lo rez @ Sep 12 2017, 04:54 PM) *

Ha! Proof that if it can be imagined, a cartoonist somewhere has drawn it.

I've never heard of vehicular homicide being charged to an MC rider, but I suppose someone somewhere has done it. Maybe it was vehicular pet homicide, as dogs have this thing about chasing moving metal, and I've never been tempted so much to use the business end of a revolver on someone's dearly loved mutt. It's just too difficult to get them in front, and since hot-dogging a bike is a lot like Russian Roulette, a gentle stomp in Rover's chops was my primary defense. Ergo, wear sturdy boots.

Had a friend's dog P on my front wheel once. Took it as high praise from Above -- that dog got to be known far and wide. Well, right up until the next bike bath.

I wonder if a pet has ever P'd on the barrel of a firearm?
AuthorMusician
This headline is terribly dishonest, from my POV:

Report: Florida girl, 4, dies after accidentally shooting herself with gun in grandma's purse

A more honest headline would be:

Florida Grandmother Enables Death Of Granddaughter By Keeping Concealed Handgun In Purse

It's more honest in that carrying the handgun was not an accident, and rifling through the purse for candy is a very easy prediction to make on the behavior of a four-year-old. Also, the only responsible adult in this story is indeed the grandmother. Unless somehow impaired, she knows this too. It matters not what anyone writes or says about it, she now gets to carry this guilt for the remainder of her life.

It also does not matter if she is or is not held legally responsible. She knows what she has done, and this is why people need to consider all possibilities, and more importantly, all probabilities of firearm ownership. If a person doesn't understand the difference between possibility and probability, then that person does not understand the risk.

Assuming she carried the pistol for self-defense, she must now face the fact that she valued her life more than others' lives, including her granddaughter's. It's a horrible thing to outlive your child. It's a living hell to outlive your grandchild AND be responsible for her/his death.

So, are you willing to take that risk to protect yourself? I'm not, and besides, virtually everyone I see treats me with respect to the point I sometimes wonder if I'm in The Truman Show. I like to think that's due to karma, aka The Golden Rule. Could be just that I look like I'd spent the last few years in a tiger cage, ala Vietnam.

In any case, no firearms for me. Don't need them. Don't want them. It's as if I get so many risk credits, and I don't want to waste them.





AuthorMusician
The Las Vegas shooting that happened yesterday has seriously impacted one guitarist who performed just a few hours before:

Caleb Keeter Changes Mind on Gun Control Laws

I'm not sure how to take this. Maybe he's in shock -- probably in shock -- and could change his mind again after his nerves settle down. Or maybe the sheer horror of the event has indeed shown him how defenseless we are when it comes to mass shooters. It's impossible to know, not having a similar experience to reference. And I'd rather finish this lifetime not knowing what it feels like to be shot at in a crowd, people falling all around, the insanity of it all.

I'd much prefer to go out the way I've lived -- peacefully, mostly. If you live by the sword, you'll die by the sword -- so maybe the reverse is true-ish too.

Anyway, Caleb has an opportunity to change his ways. He'd be wise to take a good look at his life and determine what and what is not important. If going back to his old stance of being against gun control becomes his decision, so be it. But there's something about his story that makes me think he won't. Maybe it's the musician's knowledge of how practice makes better and that perfection is unattainable. Maybe it's the images of the woman getting shot right in front of him and the realization that his friends were injured by shrapnel (or maybe flying bone material). Or maybe it's in the name? Can't put a finger on it, so it'll have to be a vague impression for now.

The shooter was 64 years old, about a year younger than me. That's old enough to have been drafted for Vietnam, at least to be a fan of Rambo with his big, bad machine gun in the first (and best) movie. There's speculation that the shooter used the same kind of weapon.

Then the Rambo wannabee killed himself. Dang, if only he had mixed up the sequence of events . . . or better, had never gotten into firearms in the first place. But then there are other possibilities, such as a brain tumor (need better healthcare) or maybe something out of story land, like being coerced into it by foreign agents. There are questions on how he obtained his stable of firearms, being that they likely cost a lot of money.

But let's say he just did this on his own volition -- he'd have been a lot smarter to stay away from firearms altogether.

I think that's where Caleb Skeeter is headed. Shoot out notes, not bullets.
AuthorMusician
A guy in Phoenix, AZ, gave up his firearms after the Las Vegas shooting. He made it public, which turned out not to be so smart:

http://www.kvoa.com/story/36537904/phoenix...s-death-threats

The lesson here is that if you give up your firearms, it's better to do it privately, not publicly. It doesn't matter who made the death threats to the guy or why, he brought possibly dangerous attention to himself and his family. Maybe he was trying to be noble, maybe lusting after online fame, maybe something else. That doesn't matter either, as he has endangered himself/family needlessly and perhaps worse than keeping the firearms in the house to begin with.

Like the Monk theme song (not the jazz guitar solo) went, It's a jungle out there. Within this context, it's a virtual jungle full of trolls and eccentrics. That sometimes bleeds into real life.
Julian
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 9 2017, 03:10 PM) *
A guy in Phoenix, AZ, gave up his firearms after the Las Vegas shooting. He made it public, which turned out not to be so smart:

http://www.kvoa.com/story/36537904/phoenix...s-death-threats

The lesson here is that if you give up your firearms, it's better to do it privately, not publicly. It doesn't matter who made the death threats to the guy or why, he brought possibly dangerous attention to himself and his family. Maybe he was trying to be noble, maybe lusting after online fame, maybe something else. That doesn't matter either, as he has endangered himself/family needlessly and perhaps worse than keeping the firearms in the house to begin with.

Like the Monk theme song (not the jazz guitar solo) went, It's a jungle out there. Within this context, it's a virtual jungle full of trolls and eccentrics. That sometimes bleeds into real life.


Close the thread - AM is talking to himself. (Well, rambling to himself would be more accurate...)
AuthorMusician
Just checking to see if the thread was actually closed.

Apparently not. Maybe because it's Casual Confab?

Ramblin Man 1970
AuthorMusician
Rifle season for deer -- whitetail, blacktail, mule, and maybe the one I just heard about, Roosevelt -- is open around this time of year. Read about a couple of recent hunter deaths, one from gunshot and the other from natural causes (age), and that brought me back to when I'd go out with Winchester in hand to murder Bambi.

It was always mysterious how hunters in tree stands wearing blaze orange kept getting shot, supposedly for being mistaken for a male deer with antlers and in rut (annual horniness). We didn't have many cows in the upper reaches of the frozen MN tundra, so no problem there, but it is a problem where cattle roam around.

It often sounded like a firefight, hunters emptying their rifles rapidly for unknown reasons -- maybe squirrels -- and it made us cringe. Taking more than one shot was considered a sign of bad marksmanship, and more than two a sign of tenderfoot disease. We also eschewed the use of brush beaters to flush out the game, mostly because that's a real good way to get shot by the aforementioned bad hunters.

Don't know what it's like today, but if what I described above sounds familiar, you might want to drop rifle hunting altogether. You're wearing bright colors in the hope that someone with a gun will not shoot you. The deer don't care, being colorblind, and will go by their noses and ears mostly. So get accustomed to the stench of deer musk for masking your human stink and sitting in one spot, cold and miserable, for hours.

Alternatives include taking up archery and/or hunting upland game birds like grouse and turkey. Birdshot (#8 usually) won't wound you too badly, and if you catch a broadhead during bow season, you might be the first in your region. Mostly though, you'll be sharing the woods with fewer bad hunters. And the seasons tend to be during warmer months, maybe fall colors too.

Then there are related sports like archery target shooting and skeet shooting, for the pheasant and duck hunters. You can also use pointer/retriever dog breeds on some kinds of hunts. Overall, the alternatives offer more year-round activities than rifle season for deer.

Finally, you can walk around when hunting grouse rather than sitting in a stand/blind. The idea is to spot the birds on the ground before they fly off in a startling mess of flapping.

From the firearm ownership risk side, shotguns and bows are not used very often, accidentally or purposefully, in domestic gun violence -- have never heard of a bow being used in domestic violence, but I suppose it has happened a few times. Hemingway offed himself with a shotgun, so there's an example. Danny Gatton did too -- Hemingway was an author and Gatton a musician.

Ergo, no scatter guns for me!
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.