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- naïveté.
[quote]magick wrote:
I live in the middle of Suburbia. There is not a single deer, or any suitable game in general to be found for hundreds of miles in any direction.
I don’t know how owning a gun helps me provide for my family.
[/quote]
Because the AR you buy today for $900 can be sold for $2400 during the next scare after some nut job uses a shotgun and MINI-14 ranch style to slaughter innocents and the press calls all firearms AR-15 who have ultra high super capacity banana death clips that are born in the blood of children because the rifle is painted black.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
MagicK I think part of your problem also is that you are looking at it from a purely self-defense standpoint.[/quote]
It is intentional.
I’ve already recognized Pushharder’s argument that the 2nd Amendment essentially calls on all U.S. citizens to arm themselves to fight tyranny.
Note, though, that this is not the case for any country that is not the U.S. But, as Pushharder also wrote, we live in the U.S., not France or some other country. Therefore, we don’t have to care about what citizens over there say. I fully agree with this.
I just have reservations about Pushharder continually saying that guns are manly and such. I consider them a tool, not a symbol of masculinity or some such. Afaik, the biggest point of contention between me and Pushharder on the issue is this anyhow. I’ll probably get to addressing this further when I eventually respond to CountingBeans.
The only thing left, afaik, is self-defense. I am still thinking on self-defense as regards to people randomly out on the streets. And I have given my position when it comes to home defense.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Having a firearm also means that I can provide for my family without any middle man. It is good knowing that one can be self sufficient, even if you don’t have to be.[/quote]
I live in the middle of Suburbia. There is not a single deer, or any suitable game in general to be found for hundreds of miles in any direction.
I don’t know how owning a gun helps me provide for my family.
[/quote]
While its true that easy access to game may not be in the cards for you(although I doubt its hundreds of miles), how do you know you will always live there? And if for some reason it becomes a need to use a firearm (you witness a gang murder, Mexico invades, madcow ruins all the beef) wouldn’t you rather have a firearm and already know how to use it than have to obtain one and learn on the fly? Obviously some of this is tongue in cheek.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
I live in the middle of Suburbia. There is not a single deer, or any suitable game in general to be found for hundreds of miles in any direction.
I don’t know how owning a gun helps me provide for my family.
[/quote]
Because the AR you buy today for $900 can be sold for $2400 during the next scare after some nut job uses a shotgun and MINI-14 ranch style to slaughter innocents and the press calls all firearms AR-15 who have ultra high super capacity banana death clips that are born in the blood of children because the rifle is painted black. [/quote]
Ha you can tell you have had to listen to way to much liberal anti-gun ranting.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
I live in the middle of Suburbia. There is not a single deer, or any suitable game in general to be found for hundreds of miles in any direction.
I don’t know how owning a gun helps me provide for my family.
[/quote]
Because the AR you buy today for $900 can be sold for $2400 during the next scare after some nut job uses a shotgun and MINI-14 ranch style to slaughter innocents and the press calls all firearms AR-15 who have ultra high super capacity banana death clips that are born in the blood of children because the rifle is painted black. [/quote]
Ha you can tell you have had to listen to way to much liberal anti-gun ranting.
[/quote]
What’s that? You have a bayonet lug on your front sight block? You sir are an enabler of evil and your assault 80 cal AR-15 is too killy and you must be labeled a felon, your weapon banned, and clips limited to 3 rounds. The lives of the children depend on you turning in your death machine.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[photo]40403[/photo]
[/quote]
Something about this woman is so fucking hot, it makes me want to be 50 so bad…
It certainly isn’t her shitty trigger discipline tho.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[photo]40403[/photo]
[/quote]
Something about this woman is so fucking hot, it makes me want to be 50 so bad…
It certainly isn’t her shitty trigger discipline tho. [/quote]
BOOOOBS
[quote]magick wrote:
This part essentially runs in the same vein of idea as with A_C’s entire post, so I might as well say it here.
Would you be willing to entertain the possibility that this is an appeal to emotions?
Yes. The potential is there. But how high is the potential? 10% chance every night you go to bed? 50%? 1%? .1%?
Unless you know the actual possibility and make a reasoned decision, aren’t you essentially going purely by fear?
I don’t mean to say that there is no chance that a home invasion could ever occur. In fact I am terrified of the possibility and part of the reason why I will quite literally do everything in my power to make my home a fortress if I ever do buy a home (and ensure that I never live on the 1st floor of an apartment complex, etc). It’s just that I also recognize that I am probably not in any serious danger of being a victim of an home invasion. I fear it anyways, and will do a lot of things to ensure no one gets into my house without me knowing.
[/quote]
Making your home a “fortress” is not always reasonable. Most residential homes are not designed with “fortress” in mind. Nor would you realistically put up barbed wire on your fence. How many homes do you see with barbed wire? C’mon, dude…
And if you DID put up barbed wire, then I’d sure as hell be wondering what the hell you had in there that required such a blatant deterrent. I agree with you on the alarm system. I have one and most people I know who care about what they have (including their family) have one. I don’t have a dog simply because I don’t have the time to properly care for a dog.
Also, something you probably are not considering: if you set up booby traps and such in your home, and a criminal breaks in, gets hurt and LIVES, he will probably sue the shit out of you and win…
But as with any “gun conversation”, the point is easily clouded with smoke, mirrors and lots of noise. Things like personal protection, hunting, etc… are brought up. That has NOTHING to do with why we in the United States of America have the Constitutional right to bear arms. We have that right so that we have the power, as Citizens, to overthrow our government should they become a tyranny.
Self defense and shooting deer are secondary. It is your RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY as an able bodied male citizen of our country to arm yourself. THAT’S what Push is referring to when he speaks of “being a man”. Men stand up and do the right thing. If you are ever called to stand up for your principles, and you don’t have a gun (and the ability to hit what you aim for), you are no better than a woman on the battlefield.
Many younger people take our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms for granted. They are NOT entitlements, they are SACRED… People DIED for them. And there are PLENTY of left wing forces that want to take them away. But most people of your generation care more about which celebrity is dumping ice on their head rather than which liberal politician is trying to pass legislation to erode our Constitution. When men of our age talk of being “manly”, we are speaking of responsibility. CIVIC responsibility specifically. And I’ve already spoken of the root words in “responsibility” before, but I’ll do it again: the “ability to respond”. Having a weapon DRASTICALLY increases one’s options for response to “life”. Because life happens and it’s not always nice. The percentages and statistics be damned. Unless your crystal ball works better than mine, you don’t KNOW what will happen or what situation you will find yourself in later today, tomorrow or next year. Things have the possibility to change drastically. And how well you have chosen to arm yourself can have a significant influence on how well you can adapt and hopefully survive.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
However firearms are about more than protection, even though protection is one of the nicer features. The new guy and Push spoke about the power aspect. (ANd this is where I think you and Push cross roads and start talking past each other.)
Power is just the other side of fear. One can have problems with either or both. One can abuse either or both, and one must train both in or out of their lives.[/quote]
I can certainly understand how objects can give the sense of power and control to you.
But I don’t “get” it. I just don’t “get” why people need these things to give them a sense of power or status or symbolize their wealth or w.e. (I’m sure you know what I talk about).
I think it’s related to why I can’t seem to just “get” Christianity, or let myself believe. I WANT to believe in Christianity, I think having good faith quite important to a person’s well-being. But I just can’t.
And I’ve done a lot of soul-digging on this. It just always comes to “I just can’t”.
I see a gun as an incredibly effective (provided you’re trained with it) way to kill things. As such, it’s obviously an incredibly effective tool to defend your life, property, what have you.
But I just can’t see it as a symbol of power.
As such,
I just don’t “get”.
Fortunately, in this case I think I can give a reason why.
I see power that an individual possesses as something innate. It is not something given to you by someone or something. It is something that you either willingly use or give up on.
If you have the will to defend yourself, then you will defend yourself. Whether you succeed or not depends entirely on the circumstances. Obviously possessing a gun (and the necessary training) will greatly increase the probability of success.
But that’s about as far as my view on guns go.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
“What guns can teach us”
[/quote]
Sorry, I culled the entire passage because I don’t want to clutter up space.
I get what you’re saying here as well. I also see people say the similar things with a lot of martial arts, like BJJ and such. I personally practice judo and hear people say a lot of the same thing as well.
I don’t believe a word of it.
If something teaches you something, then either you had a great teacher who instilled those qualities or values into you, or you learned them on your own because they resonate with you personally.
But the act of doing something in of itself will never teach you anything. That is what I believe. Otherwise people who study engineering of whatever at college will be brilliant engineers of whatever.
I believe Pushharder would disagree with that.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
None of the things you want to do are being threatened to be banned by national level politicos tho…[/quote]
You have my condolences =(
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Conditioning is conditioning is conditioning.
I’d have to find the book, but the adjustment time from 300 hours of video game shooting to accuracy with a real rifle/pistol is some absurd number like 12-15 shots.[/quote]
That is incredibly interesting.
I would love it if you could find that book.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I dismissed him because he purposely ignored practically all I had to say[/quote]
Bullshit. I already wrote earlier that I agree with you on the notion of the 2nd Amendment and what it calls on U.S. citizens to do.
I will now add that I never quite saw it that way, but after reading what you wrote and thinking on what I know of U.S. history, I’ve come to the conclusion that you are probably right.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
and tried to funnel the discussion via narrow minded claptrap into various ways to secure one’s domicile. His argument descended into basic silliness. I don’t and won’t fuck around with Pitttttbulllll-esque silliness, i.e., I don’t dance with dunces.
[/quote]
That you cannot read well and are generally incapable of seeing beyond one post at a time is not my problem.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It’s not necessarily about masculinity except to the extent that masculinity involves responsibility. THINK, for crying out loud. Think it through.[/quote]
CountingBeans is right. We are talking past one another.
The pictures prove it.
[quote]frontsite wrote:
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- naÃ?¯vetÃ?©. [/quote]
You can own a gun and still be a helpless victim to a violent crime. What if you don’t have your gun with you? What if you keep it in a lock?
The act of gun ownership in of itself doesn’t mean you suddenly become capable of thwarting every attempt at home invasion or whatnot.
This goes in vein with what I wrote to CountingBeans in the above. I believe whether you defend yourself is entirely up to you. A gun (and proper training) simply increases your chance of succeeding.
But it’s not like you cannot defend yourself if you don’t own a gun.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
I live in the middle of Suburbia. There is not a single deer, or any suitable game in general to be found for hundreds of miles in any direction.
I don’t know how owning a gun helps me provide for my family.
[/quote]
Because the AR you buy today for $900 can be sold for $2400 during the next scare after some nut job uses a shotgun and MINI-14 ranch style to slaughter innocents and the press calls all firearms AR-15 who have ultra high super capacity banana death clips that are born in the blood of children because the rifle is painted black. [/quote]
=D
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
While its true that easy access to game may not be in the cards for you(although I doubt its hundreds of miles), how do you know you will always live there? And if for some reason it becomes a need to use a firearm (you witness a gang murder, Mexico invades, madcow ruins all the beef) wouldn’t you rather have a firearm and already know how to use it than have to obtain one and learn on the fly? Obviously some of this is tongue in cheek.[/quote]
If I move to some place with a lot of game one day, then I’ll probably get a gun to go hunting. I heard venison is tasty.
The need for a gun to defend yourself doesn’t have anything to do with game-hunting.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Making your home a “fortress” is not always reasonable. Most residential homes are not designed with “fortress” in mind. Nor would you realistically put up barbed wire on your fence. How many homes do you see with barbed wire? C’mon, dude…[/quote]
This sounds so much like arguments that say guns aren’t necessary for home defense!
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Also, something you probably are not considering: if you set up booby traps and such in your home, and a criminal breaks in, gets hurt and LIVES, he will probably sue the shit out of you and win…[/quote]
How does that work? They tried to break into my house.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
But as with any “gun conversation”, the point is easily clouded with smoke, mirrors and lots of noise. Things like personal protection, hunting, etc… are brought up. That has NOTHING to do with why we in the United States of America have the Constitutional right to bear arms. We have that right so that we have the power, as Citizens, to overthrow our government should they become a tyranny.
Self defense and shooting deer are secondary. It is your RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY as an able bodied male citizen of our country to arm yourself. THAT’S what Push is referring to when he speaks of “being a man”. Men stand up and do the right thing. If you are ever called to stand up for your principles, and you don’t have a gun (and the ability to hit what you aim for), you are no better than a woman on the battlefield.[/quote]
Can you guys please stop talking about this? I already wrote that I agree with it. Like. Three. Times.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The percentages and statistics be damned. Unless your crystal ball works better than mine, you don’t KNOW what will happen or what situation you will find yourself in later today, tomorrow or next year. Things have the possibility to change drastically. And how well you have chosen to arm yourself can have a significant influence on how well you can adapt and hopefully survive.[/quote]
Ya, that’s why I prefer to have barbed wire around my fences. Never know when someone might try to break into my house.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
But, and I’m 100% serious, if you lived within a 100 miles of me I would drive, pick you up, drive back to my range, take you shooting for the day, and drive you home.
And I wouldn’t do that to convert you, nor would I try and convince you of anything other than “this is what this firearm is, how it functions, and how to shoot it. Now blast that paper plate, lol.”
[/quote]
Just wanted to post this here because I supposed the above quote relates to it.
A guy I know from judo class took me shooting today.
Fired an AR-10 and a handgun, a Glock think. All I recall is that I fired 10mm auto cartridges.
It was interesting. I fully expected the noise, but didn’t expect the pressure generated by the rifles. I felt each round folks shot. Didn’t expect to get hit by the spent casings either.
Couple things I felt from the experience-
-The instructor who had the 9-year girl fire an Uzi at full-auto, and everyone who was watching and let it happen, was fucking insane. Everyone at the place I went to was (afaik) very safety conscious. My buddy always gave me a magazine loaded with just one round, and would have me load another for every shot I took.
But, more notably and more pertinent, a father who came shooting with his young son (no older than 10 from the looks of him) would continually tell him of safety rules and “scold” him whenever he did something that could be dangerous.
I really do have to wonder- Which is the norm? Should I expect every gun-owner and shooter to be as responsible as my buddy, who continually demanded that I keep the muzzle always pointed upwards and away from anyone even when there is no bullet in the chamber, or is he the rare exception?
I really liked how he kept telling me of the 4 rules of gun safety and how he would be drilling me on it every time I meet him from now on.
-At the very least, most of those who fired at the range I went to seem to be pure hobbyists. I don’t think any of them purchased guns on the expectation that it is their duty to do so to fight tyrants or for self-defense. One would think that they would take care of their body otherwise.
-The AR-10 doesn’t have any kick-back when you fire it from a seated position with a rifle-stand. But, man that air pressure.
-I found it hard to aim properly with the Glock initially, but then got a hang of it and started hitting the paper targets.
-Shooting paper seems cool and chill. I think it’s a nice way to just relax and rest your mind.
-I still don’t get how guns make you manly or give you a sense of power.
[quote]magick wrote:
I can certainly understand how objects can give the sense of power and control to you.
But I don’t “get” it. I just don’t “get” why people need these things to give them a sense of power or status or symbolize their wealth or w.e. (I’m sure you know what I talk about).[/quote]
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 think it’s related to why I can’t seem to just “get” Christianity, or let myself believe. I WANT to believe in Christianity, I think having good faith quite important to a person’s well-being. But I just can’t.
And I’ve done a lot of soul-digging on this. It just always comes to “I just can’t”.[/quote]
You’re still young, but if its meant to be it will be. If not, you have tried, and that is a whole hell of a lot more than others can say.
[quote]I see a gun as an incredibly effective (provided you’re trained with it) way to kill things. As such, it’s obviously an incredibly effective tool to defend your life, property, what have you.
But I just can’t see it as a symbol of power.[/quote]
It isn’t a symbol, it is a vehicle of power.
[quote]As such,
I just don’t “get”.
Fortunately, in this case I think I can give a reason why.
I see power that an individual possesses as something innate. It is not something given to you by someone or something. It is something that you either willingly use or give up on.
If you have the will to defend yourself, then you will defend yourself. Whether you succeed or not depends entirely on the circumstances. Obviously possessing a gun (and the necessary training) will greatly increase the probability of success.
But that’s about as far as my view on guns go.[/quote]
You do “get it”. You just don’t realize it.
[quote][quote]countingbeans wrote:
“What guns can teach us”
[/quote]
Sorry, I culled the entire passage because I don’t want to clutter up space.
I get what you’re saying here as well. I also see people say the similar things with a lot of martial arts, like BJJ and such. I personally practice judo and hear people say a lot of the same thing as well.
I don’t believe a word of it.[/quote]
There is quite a bit of research out there that says you are completely wrong then, lol.
Believe what you want, but…
[quote]If something teaches you something, then either you had a great teacher who instilled those qualities or values into you, or you learned them on your own because they resonate with you personally.
But the act of doing something in of itself will never teach you anything. That is what I believe. [/quote]
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]That is incredibly interesting.
I would love it if you could find that book.
[/quote]
I know the book, it’s finding where in it, lol.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Also, something you probably are not considering: if you set up booby traps and such in your home, and a criminal breaks in, gets hurt and LIVES, he will probably sue the shit out of you and win…[/quote]
How does that work? They tried to break into my house.
[/quote]
lopl, it happens. Come to MA. We love our criminals here.
[quote]magick wrote:
I really do have to wonder- Which is the norm? Should I expect every gun-owner and shooter to be as responsible as my buddy, who continually demanded that I keep the muzzle always pointed upwards and away from anyone even when there is no bullet in the chamber, or is he the rare exception?
[/quote]
People following the 4 rules is the norm, but you get yahoos now and again.
At the range, the overwhelming situation is safe operation. You start hanging out on Wild Bill’s farm out in East Bumb Shoe, and you’ll see things get a bit more careless.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I totally agree with you. What percentage of alcohol in his system does Jeff Gordon need to to reduce his driving ability to that of Memaw, the 95 year-old great-grandmother down the street that can barely see over her steering wheel? That really doesn’t matter, does it? They’re both allowed the same.[/quote]
So your argument is DUI should not be criminalize because Jeff Gordon is a better drive than a great grand mother; therefore, he would be a better driver while under the influence?
They are both allowed the same what? Blood alcohol content. That could mean 4 beers for Gordon and a sip of Miller Lite for Granny.
Does alcohol influence Gordon’s driving, yes or no? If yes, does it make him a better or worse driver?
[/quote]
No, what I was saying is that Jeff Gordon’s BAC would likely have to be FAR above the legal limit to reduce his driving ability to that of sober Memaw, so Gordon could be charged with DUI while being far safer than Memaw, who would be allowed to travel unmolested.
If I get three hours of sleep over the course of two days, I’m probably a worse driver than I would be if I had eight hours a night, so how should I be punished?[/quote]
Jeff Gordon is only a better drive if all his turns to get home are to the left.