You guys and your guns...

[Svartalf]

The thing is, though, that the book does not mention gunpowder - just a 'blasting fire' supplied by the wizard Saruman. Bearing in mind that he was a wizard, I suspect Tolkien meant it to be a magical weapon.

Given it was emplaced and primed by orcs who are completely magic ignorant, and how Saruman turned Isengard into an industrial complex, I do suspect that mundane science had more to do with the blasting fire than any kind of sorcery, especially since fire magic is Gandalf's province, both by inclination and by the fact he is the one wearing Narya.

[pErvinalia]

Only on Ratz could a gun thread get derailed by LoTR...

[Svartalf]

Given how acrimonious this is becoming, a good derail seems to be in order anyway.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, I get sick of the same hobbitual comments in these threads...

[Warren Dew]

Given how acrimonious this is becoming, a good derail seems to be in order anyway.

I've seen lots of Tolkien threads more acrimonious than this one.

[SteveB]

Bringing this shit on topic (not that I derailed this thread several times).

I think a lot of people, me included, think that by choosing to own a gun one is giving into one's irrational fears. Fears like thinking you're going to be the victim of an unlikely crime even though crime rates are always dropping and that crime will somehow be prevented by carrying a gun at all times.

Just giving some perspective from my side. I don't live in fear of my safety. But I think I would if I owned a gun.

[JimC]

Bringing this shit on topic (not that I derailed this thread several times).

I think a lot of people, me included, think that by choosing to own a guy one is giving into one's irrational fears. Fears like thinking you're going to be the victim of an unlikely crime even though crime rates are always dropping and that crime will somehow be prevented by carrying a gun at all times.

Just giving some perspective from my side. I don't live in fear of my safety. But I think I would if I owned a gun.

But hasn't slavery been abolished?

[SteveB]

Bringing this shit on topic (not that I derailed this thread several times).

I think a lot of people, me included, think that by choosing to own a guy one is giving into one's irrational fears. Fears like thinking you're going to be the victim of an unlikely crime even though crime rates are always dropping and that crime will somehow be prevented by carrying a gun at all times.

Just giving some perspective from my side. I don't live in fear of my safety. But I think I would if I owned a gun.

But hasn't slavery been abolished?

It appears that I only made that mistake in a parallel universe which imprinted itself onto this one for the briefest of moments.

Carry on.

[Blind groper]

That is correct, Nibbler.
The Branas study showed that carrying a gun increased your risk of getting shot by 450%.

I don't really have a problem with a householder having a rifle or shotgun at home, and regarding it as part of their home self defense. However, when wandering abroad in public no one should have a firearm. Since the only concealable firearm is a hand gun, and since murder statistics show that half of all murders are by hand guns, it is logical, rational and reasonable to try to do away with this specific kind of weapon.

If you feel the need for self defense when away from home, then it is reasonable to carry either a personal alarm, which can be up to 130 decibels, or a can of pepper spray. Both extremely effective at defending against a mugger, and both non lethal.

[Wumbologist]

That is correct, Nibbler.
The Branas study showed that carrying a gun increased your risk of getting shot by 450%.

I don't really have a problem with a householder having a rifle or shotgun at home, and regarding it as part of their home self defense. However, when wandering abroad in public no one should have a firearm. Since the only concealable firearm is a hand gun, and since murder statistics show that half of all murders are by hand guns, it is logical, rational and reasonable to try to do away with this specific kind of weapon.

If you feel the need for self defense when away from home, then it is reasonable to carry either a personal alarm, which can be up to 130 decibels, or a can of pepper spray. Both extremely effective at defending against a mugger, and both non lethal.

We went over the Branas study earlier in the thread, and I determined that it proves absolutely nothing in regards to law-abiding gun owners lawfully carrying a concealed firearm, because that's not even who the study was looking at.. It was a study done in Philadelphia where they looked at shooting victims, and then checked if they had been carrying guns when they were shot. At no point was the lawfulness of their carrying brought into question, and that fact combined with the fact that it was done in urban Philly makes it pretty fucking obvious that the people carrying guns were more likely to get shot because they were criminal gang members shooting at each other.

[JimC]

That is correct, Nibbler.
The Branas study showed that carrying a gun increased your risk of getting shot by 450%.

I don't really have a problem with a householder having a rifle or shotgun at home, and regarding it as part of their home self defense. However, when wandering abroad in public no one should have a firearm. Since the only concealable firearm is a hand gun, and since murder statistics show that half of all murders are by hand guns, it is logical, rational and reasonable to try to do away with this specific kind of weapon.

If you feel the need for self defense when away from home, then it is reasonable to carry either a personal alarm, which can be up to 130 decibels, or a can of pepper spray. Both extremely effective at defending against a mugger, and both non lethal.

We went over the Branas study earlier in the thread, and I determined that it proves absolutely nothing in regards to law-abiding gun owners lawfully carrying a concealed firearm, because that's not even who the study was looking at.. It was a study done in Philadelphia where they looked at shooting victims, and then checked if they had been carrying guns when they were shot. At no point was the lawfulness of their carrying brought into question, and that fact combined with the fact that it was done in urban Philly makes it pretty fucking obvious that the people carrying guns were more likely to get shot because they were criminal gang members shooting at each other.

In a way, though, it still makes the point - carry guns, for whatever reason, and you're more likely to die...

[Wumbologist]

In a way, though, it still makes the point - carry guns, for whatever reason, and you're more likely to die...

How do you figure? It seems to me that the only point it's making is that if you're in a gang, you're more likely to die, and incidentally if you're in a gang you might be illegally carrying a firearm when that happens. In order for it to prove anything about any other reasons for carrying a gun, you'd have to do targeted studies, and carefully too, if you actually wanted results that tell you something about the real world. One would have to be very careful not to confuse "if you're more likely to die, you might carry a gun" with "if you carry a gun, you're more likely to die". Many people who carry guns do so because for one reason or another, be it a job that has them handling valuables, or pre-existing threat to their life, or perhaps they live in a bad part of town and they know it, and carry a gun because of that. In any of those cases their risk to be shot is naturally higher than normal. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a courier who handles jewelry was more likely to be shot than a McDonald's employee, but it wouldn't be on account of whether either of them was carrying a gun.

[JimC]

In a way, though, it still makes the point - carry guns, for whatever reason, and you're more likely to die...

How do you figure? It seems to me that the only point it's making is that if you're in a gang, you're more likely to die, and incidentally if you're in a gang you might be illegally carrying a firearm when that happens. In order for it to prove anything about any other reasons for carrying a gun, you'd have to do targeted studies, and carefully too, if you actually wanted results that tell you something about the real world. One would have to be very careful not to confuse "if you're more likely to die, you might carry a gun" with "if you carry a gun, you're more likely to die". Many people who carry guns do so because for one reason or another, be it a job that has them handling valuables, or pre-existing threat to their life, or perhaps they live in a bad part of town and they know it, and carry a gun because of that. In any of those cases their risk to be shot is naturally higher than normal. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a courier who handles jewelry was more likely to be shot than a McDonald's employee, but it wouldn't be on account of whether either of them was carrying a gun.

I suppose that makes sense in a society where hand-guns are prevalent, and gun-crimes are high.

I still don't think I have got the point across to US forum members how utterly weird the whole thing seems from the outside...

And that is not a blanket criticism, simply trying to get you guys to see that what you consider normal in the sense of guns and society is a statistical outlier as far as the rest of the developed world is concerned...

[MrJonno]

There are really two separate arguments

1) American society is so violent that the only way for a 'law-abiding' citizen to defend himself is to have a firearm

2) This is a good thing

They are are actually two very different points 1) is understandable and may have some truth to it 2) is so fucked it that its hard to comprehend by anyone who istn a psychopath

[Blind groper]

the fact that it was done in urban Philly makes it pretty fucking obvious that the people carrying guns were more likely to get shot because they were criminal gang members shooting at each other.

Actually no.

It is a while now, but some months ago, I checked the original Branas paper. He had done a demographic analysis of the shot victims. We know that criminal gangs have certain characteristics. They are normally young, male, poor and uneducated. The Branas study showed the majority of the shot persons carrying guns did not fit this demographic. When the victims are middle aged, or female, or successful in business or career, or have university degrees, they are exceedingly unlikely to be "criminal gang members shooting at each other."