[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yes, there are good solid reasons for keeping and bearing beyond your residence:
A strong case for high capacity magazines.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yes, there are good solid reasons for keeping and bearing beyond your residence:
I long for the day that someone has a gun in one of these instances and thins out the crowd when they get surrounded. The people involved in these mob beating situations are like animals that need to be put down for the greater good.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yeah, again, there is a large body of science out there that proves you are completely wrong here, and most anyone with half their brain left that has been in battle will tell you that “you revert back to the level of training you’ve mastered.”
Muscle memory is real, training is real, and everything you do trains you.
[/quote]
Well, when I wrote that I disagree with you on this, I meant more on the-
“responsibility” and other more “philosophical” (for a lack of a better word in my mind atm) things. I know what muscle memory and training can do. I realize that the way I phrased my statement makes it seem that they don’t exist, but that wasn’t my intent. Apologies.
Basically… what I meant was “the sheer act of doing something doesn’t necessarily make you into a ‘better’ individual”.
Sorry if I misunderstood what you wrote.
I’ll get to the rest eventually.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I long for the day that someone has a gun in one of these instances and thins out the crowd when they get surrounded. The people involved in these mob beating situations are like animals that need to be put down for the greater good. [/quote]
Would you say the same of the mobs that feathered and tarred British officials during the colonial era?
[quote]magick wrote:
Basically… what I meant was “the sheer act of doing something doesn’t necessarily make you into a ‘better’ individual”.
.[/quote]
Well, there is apparently science that says getting good at head shots and repeated killing in video games translates quite well to real life shooting very quickly. And that these kids keep killing because the revert back to the training they have mastered, killing as many as possible to get the high score.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I long for the day that someone has a gun in one of these instances and thins out the crowd when they get surrounded. The people involved in these mob beating situations are like animals that need to be put down for the greater good. [/quote]
Would you say the same of the mobs that feathered and tarred British officials during the colonial era?[/quote]
Depends on the instance. Colonial times it was more a means to an end. Plenty of post colonial instances of tar and feathering (more modern society) I would say the victims should have killed those responsible (see Tulsa Outrage)
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
Basically… what I meant was “the sheer act of doing something doesn’t necessarily make you into a ‘better’ individual”.
.[/quote]
Well, there is apparently science that says getting good at head shots and repeated killing in video games translates quite well to real life shooting very quickly. And that these kids keep killing because the revert back to the training they have mastered, killing as many as possible to get the high score. [/quote]
There’s trained and untrained.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
Basically… what I meant was “the sheer act of doing something doesn’t necessarily make you into a ‘better’ individual”.
.[/quote]
Well, there is apparently science that says getting good at head shots and repeated killing in video games translates quite well to real life shooting very quickly. And that these kids keep killing because the revert back to the training they have mastered, killing as many as possible to get the high score. [/quote]
There’s trained and untrained, now which are you?
[/quote]
God damn double post.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Well, there is apparently science that says getting good at head shots and repeated killing in video games translates quite well to real life shooting very quickly. And that these kids keep killing because the revert back to the training they have mastered, killing as many as possible to get the high score. [/quote]
Are you sure those aren’t anti-video game researchers trying to make video games look evil?
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Depends on the instance. Colonial times it was more a means to an end.[/quote]
Hrm.
Could you expand on what you mean by “means to an end”?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
My question then is, is it really necessarily the case that the person who lives in a very crime-free area is being irresponsible by not maximizing his/her self-defense capability?
I mean, technically speaking you could go buy a trained guard dog. You can place barbed wire on your fences (the home my parents bought actually has this, at least on the fence that isn’t shared by the next door neighbors). You can place hidden nails on your window-frame so that people who try to break in stab themselves with it (did this too when I lived in the dorms at college, I am paranoid)
You can place motion detectors. I mean, there’s tons of things you can do that don’t really cost a lot in the first place, is generally unobtrusive, and can be quite effective as a deterrent/safety measure.[/quote]
As a former criminal who got caught and did time twenty years ago, I’d like to offer you some perspective. Now, keep in mind, I don’t even break the speed limit anymore, but from the age of about 14 - 22, I was about as bad as they get, either on the streets regularly committing theft, burglary and armed robbery or from 18 - 22, incarcerated in one of the five worst prisons in the US. So what I’m about to tell you isn’t some “theory” or something I “read in a book”. I LIVED this…
First of all, every “citizen” is a potential mark. If you live in a “low crime area” chances are that the police won’t spot me on the way in because they aren’t as used to dealing with much crime. You have better stuff than people in poorer “high crime areas”. There’s a higher chance that you are UN-armed because you are more likely to have been to college and to have been infected by the liberal anti-second amendment disease. In other words, YOU ARE AN IDEAL TARGET. You are likely to have homes further spaced apart so that your neighbors cant hear your cries for help. Your dog is probably a pussy that is spoiled and will not protect you.
To gain access to your house, most of the time I would just have to ring the fucking door bell and your trusting ass will just open the door… At which point, you will probably piss your pants, not fight back and obey every single thing I say. In short, you are likely to be a weak, soft target that I can exploit with one hand tied behind my back. Bonus if your wife or daughter is hot, then they’d get to have a little fun while they were there. Might make you watch just for the kicks…
THOSE are the kind of people that I spent four years with and THAT is what they think of “low crime areas” and the “privileged” people that live there. They would kill you slowly just because you had a better childhood than them and it would make them feel empowered for a minute or two… These aren’t “logical” people - they are criminally psychotic. Your “low crime area” is their play ground/hunting area. If you don’t think you need a gun (and know how to use it), you are very naive.
For the record, I did not directly participate in any home invasions of citizens like I depicted above. I did knock over a drug house or two, but they were in the game - different set of rules. And I can honestly say that I never hurt anyone who didn’t have it coming. HOWEVER, I spent a lot of time with some truly evil people and I can tell you, given what I directly experienced and witnessed, I feel that anyone who chooses to go through life UN-armed when they have the option to be LEGALLY armed is fucking stupid.[/quote]
Damn, glad I don’t live by you. The statistics don’t point to this in southeastern Michigan, which includes Detroit, Pontiac and flint. Suburban home invasions resulting in homicide or rape are very rare here and you have some of the wealthiest areas in close proximity to some of the poorest.
I do live a fair bit out from Detroit but there were something like two or three murders in my county last year.
Could be also that Michigan has fairly lenient gun laws so we are pretty well armed. Most people I know, liberal or conservative have guns in their home.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Well, there is apparently science that says getting good at head shots and repeated killing in video games translates quite well to real life shooting very quickly. And that these kids keep killing because the revert back to the training they have mastered, killing as many as possible to get the high score. [/quote]
Are you sure those aren’t anti-video game researchers trying to make video games look evil?[/quote]
Yes, because the guy who wrote it in the book doesn’t give two shits about video games. The game doesn’t make anyone evil. The game doesn’t make people go insane. The game simply trains them how to shoot, and the “mass killing” method of shooting.
He clearly states this. This is battle science, not .gov funded research in the name of shutting Nintendo.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
Most people I know, liberal or conservative have guns in their home.
[/quote]
Yes civil rights aren’t really a Dem v Rep issue, but they get made out to be. There are a lot of people who vote D but have a very agreeable view on guns and the 2nd.
Yes, D politicians try and take our guns more than R, but there is a difference between someone doing something stupid because the polls are skewed, and a tyrant like a Feinstein and Obama’s “we should be like Australia” bullshit.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
They don’t need anything to feel power. And you’re thinking of power from the wrong perspective to get what we’re trying to say. The rifle is just a tool, just like a hammer, just like a computer and just like car.
What power did your car give you when you got your first? If you grew up like me it certainly wasn’t a status symbol. It was a shitbox beater that gave you freedom to do whatever you wanted, forced you to be responsible enough to hold a shit job for gas money and generally just leads you to the path to adult hood. It gave you the power to be yourself, independent.
A hammer? It gives you the power to create, to build. To add to the world structures is a power that isn’t comparable to “I rule the world” power, but just more of a “I can do” power.
It isn’t the object that gives you power, its the object that allows you to channel your power, the power you already had.
[/quote]
I said I’d get to this eventually, but I forgot about it.
Anyways, I seriously get the feeling that your definition of “power” differs from what Pushharder and frontsite talk about.
I mean, read this-
[quote]
frontsite wrote:
Take away your gun, you strip the man of his power. Symbolically and literally.
--------------------[indicating separate posts]
It’s just like you could rationalize that you don’t “need” any savings or insurance. Besides, there is only a .01% chance I will become disabled, or have a catastrophic illness. But why not be prepared? Becoming a helpless victim to violent crime in most cases is a choice. Many victim share one highly preventable trait in common- naivete.[/quote]
Note how he says “helpless victim”? As far as I’m know, he is saying that not arming yourself is leaving yourself defenseless and completely at the mercy of others.
Not to mention what he says in the first post.
FYI, I’d agree with your quote above. Guns, like with hammers and cars, obviously give me an ability to channel the power that I already possess and improve on it, make it better, w.e.
But you always possess the power to defend yourself. To not have a gun doesn’t literally strip me of power.