Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[JimC]

"I see no reason to have a gun, and I don't want one, therefore, anyone who does own a gun must be fucked up."

If a person owns a gun, and has no practical reason for owning a gun, then you have to look at psychological reasons. My view is that the main psychological reason is the feeling of power over other people that the gun provides. Relationships to penises, large or small, are probably imaginary. Feelings of power, though, are not.

People, and especially males, love power. For those who cannot gain political power (most of us), there is the alternative of holding a loaded firearm and knowing it gives you the power of life or death.

Killing humans IS a "practical" reason. Else why would security, LE and military have them?

I grant that it is a legitimate reason in the context of military action or legally valid law enforcement. Hand guns in these contexts are tools of the trade (although one hopes that law enforcement officers use them only as an absolute last resort, having tried all other available options, including tasers etc.). Privately run security agencies using guns are rather suspect, IMO, but I suppose a case can be made...

The real argument, of course, is about the use and possession of hand guns by private citizens, fuelled by either paranoia or aggression...

[Gallstones]

In the US it is legally valid to apply lethal force via firearm to a physical threat or domicile intrusion.
Handguns and carbines and AR 15's are the best tools for applying that LEGAL lethal force.

[Seth]

You don't imagine that people that walk into schools, temples, shopping centres, movie theatres, etc and starting shooting people at random - might not have some personal inadequacies?

The inherent fallacy involved is in conflating people who might have personal inadequacies that have nothing whatever to do with the likelihood that they will shoot people at random with anyone who owns a gun.

Someone might indeed have a small penis...or no penis at all...and enjoy shooting sports or desire personal security without the recreational urge or the desire for personal security having anything at all to do with the size, or existence of, that person's penis.

That's why it's an asinine, stupid and mendacious fallacy, and those who parrot it are asinine, stupid and mendacious, not to mention deliberately insulting to gun owners.

[Seth]

It isn't only men who own guns.
So what fallacious, stereotypical inadequacies would a woman who owned guns be compensating for?

Failure to reproduce, land a man, manage a household, be a leader in the PTA, and various and sundry other bullshit reasons, of course.

Sexist, misogynist pigs say stuff like that.

[Seth]

would a woman who owned guns be compensating for?

The gun nutters are largely male. Relatively few women become gun owning and gun totin' nut cases. Generally speaking, this shows that the female gender is saner than the males. But there are always a few exceptions.

And you know this how, exactly? Another of your alimentary inspections gone bad?

[Gallstones]

You don't imagine that people that walk into schools, temples, shopping centres, movie theatres, etc and starting shooting people at random - might not have some personal inadequacies?

The inherent fallacy involved is in conflating people who might have personal inadequacies that have nothing whatever to do with the likelihood that they will shoot people at random with anyone who owns a gun.

Someone might indeed have a small penis...or no penis at all...and enjoy shooting sports or desire personal security without the recreational urge or the desire for personal security having anything at all to do with the size, or existence of, that person's penis.

That's why it's an asinine, stupid and mendacious fallacy, and those who parrot it are asinine, stupid and mendacious, not to mention deliberately insulting to gun owners.

What they are are children thinking and speaking and tittering like children because they haven't the intellectual caliber to think like intelligent adults. It's the best they have, and pitiful isn't yet part of their vocabulary--too many syllables. They want to be spoon fed and taken care of like dependent children.

[Seth]

To Coito

No serious hunter uses a hand gun.

You demonstrate your abysmal ignorance with every post. What the fuck do you know about handgun hunting in the US? Nothing, that's what.

By serious, I mean someone who is not out for 'sport' but to get meat.

Strawman fallacy. You don't get to define what "hunting" means. It means what it means.

Even the very best hunting hand gun is inferior to a good rifle.

But it's lighter, easier to carry and actually more effective in some kinds of terrain, like head-high alders with bears in them. See, you know fuck-all about hunting or handguns. Why don't you just shut up and learn something?

As far as target shooting for sport is concerned, you do not need to own a weapon of murder.

It's only a "weapon of murder" if it's used to murder someone, which accounts for a tiny fraction of one percent of all handguns owned by people in the US. Otherwise it's just an inanimate lump of metal and plastic that has no intent or capacity to commit "murder" on it's own. Some people are just too stupid to understand this simple fact of physics.

There are pistol clubs and shooting ranges that keep the hand guns on site, in a very serious safe, and rent them to their members, for a low fee. There are also air pistols that are not lethal to humans, but totally suitable for shooting targets.

So what? I don't want to use their pistols, I want to use mine. It's not a "bill of needs" it's a "Bill of Rights."

Self defense, as I have pointed out repeatedly, with a hand gun is an illusion.

Only to morons who don't understand the concept.

It is an illusion, because owning a hand gun does not make your family safer.

Tell it to the millions of people who have had their lives saved by the judicious and timely use of a handgun.

It actually increases the risk of a member of the family being killed, as very clear cut statistics show.

Only for idiots, and we don't need them around anyway, so having them Darwinize themselves is a social plus.

For example, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, having a hand gun in the house, and readily available (not in a safe) increases the risk of a member of the family successfully committing suicide by ten fold.

And of course the New England Journal of Medicine is a completely unbiased and neutral organization with no anti-gun bias or agenda whatsoever, so everything they publish must be the gospel truth...oh wait, NOT!

Seth will, doubtless go callous on this and say that a suicide does not matter. But if it was his child who picked up his gun and shot him/herself, he would change his idiot tune very quickly.

I don't leave my gun around for children to pick up because I"m not an idiot. If you're an idiot, you shouldn't have a gun or children.

Telling a truth about gender difference is not sexist.

True enough, but you didn't tell a truth.

If I say most males have stronger biceps than most females, that is simply true, not sexist. By saying that being a gun nutter is more characteristic of males than females, that is also simply true, not sexist. With a few exceptions, of course.

Prove it. Show us the science or shut the fuck up.

[Seth]

"I see no reason to have a gun, and I don't want one, therefore, anyone who does own a gun must be fucked up."

If a person owns a gun, and has no practical reason for owning a gun, then you have to look at psychological reasons. My view is that the main psychological reason is the feeling of power over other people that the gun provides. Relationships to penises, large or small, are probably imaginary. Feelings of power, though, are not.

People, and especially males, love power. For those who cannot gain political power (most of us), there is the alternative of holding a loaded firearm and knowing it gives you the power of life or death.

Killing humans IS a "practical" reason. Else why would security, LE and military have them?

I grant that it is a legitimate reason in the context of military action or legally valid law enforcement. Hand guns in these contexts are tools of the trade (although one hopes that law enforcement officers use them only as an absolute last resort, having tried all other available options, including tasers etc.). Privately run security agencies using guns are rather suspect, IMO, but I suppose a case can be made...

The real argument, of course, is about the use and possession of hand guns by private citizens, fuelled by either paranoia or aggression...

Preparing for armed self defense isn't paranoia, it's good judgment, good tactics and a social benefit to others.

[Blind groper]

Killing humans IS a "practical" reason. Else why would security, LE and military have them?

Police and military OK.
Civilians no.

Reason? 8,000 murdered people each year with hand guns. Only in the USA does this happen. No other western advanced nation.

[Blind groper]

And you know this how, exactly? Another of your alimentary inspections gone bad?

Simple statistics. From the surveys on gun ownership, it turns out that there are roughly 3 gun owners who are male for every one who is female.

[Blind groper]

like head-high alders with bears in them.

The US Forest Service has come out with a definitive statement on the inadequacy of hand guns against bears. They recommend bear spray instead, if you feel threatened.

[Blind groper]

It's only a "weapon of murder" if it's used to murder someone

A hand gun is a weapon of murder because its only function is to kill a human. Of course, more people are killed by hand guns during suicide than through murder, but the end result is still a dead person. Hand guns in civilian ownership have no other function.

[Blind groper]

Tell it to the millions of people who have had their lives saved by the judicious and timely use of a handgun.

I am amazed, Seth, that even you can believe that load of total and utter crap.

Millions of people have not had their lives saved by hand guns. One in 3 Americans own firearms. If that one in 3 means millions of lives saved, the other two thirds must mean double that number killed by not owning a hand gun. That logic is simple enough that even a redneck, right wing idiot should understand it.

[Blind groper]

And of course the New England Journal of Medicine is a completely unbiased and neutral organization with no anti-gun bias or agenda whatsoever, so everything they publish must be the gospel truth...oh wait, NOT!

Actually the New England Journal of Medicine is one of the most reputable medical journals on the planet, as shown by the enormous number of times it is referenced. It got that way by very, very stringent adherence to objective truth, via a robust peer review process.

[FBM]

If I encountered a bear again, I'd like to have spray to start with, and if that didn't work I'd rather have a .44 to try, rather than nothing.