Skip to main content

View Diary: I shot an Assault Rifle this Weekend, It was FUN! (596 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Really? (15+ / 0-)

    A locked rack,
    inside a locked cage,
    inside a locked vault,
    inside a locked room.
    with 4 different adults permission required for access?

    With ammo stored in a similar manner separate from the rifles?

    If true, you can't claim to be reliant upon those guns for self defense against home invasion. Unless you have all of the above inside a panic room in the center of your house.

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 12:15:10 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  A locked vault in a lock house in a locked (5+ / 0-)

      room.

      Only I can access the firearms. Notice I said long guns. There's a reason I carry a pistol.

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 12:31:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kyle doesn't make comments like that in the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, Smoh

      literal sense. He deals in pablum. Just absloutely loves the stuff. Pablum and donuts, that's good old Kyle for you.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 12:31:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I suspect he applies the "war zone" standards (4+ / 0-)

      Not the training drill standards.

      "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

      by Catte Nappe on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 12:32:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Most folks who carry a firearm for self defense (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, LilithGardener, PavePusher

      carry one firearm for self defense.  Where do you imagine we keep the others?

      Mind you, the pistol usually gets exchanged for the long gun at night.  Then they swap roles again in the morning.

      •  Right - but then it wouldn't be a 2A infringement (8+ / 0-)

        to restrict firearm ownership to 1 or a few guns, with proven shooting competency with each.

        Disclosure: I believe the right to self defense is a universal human right. I fully support the RKBA for self defense on one's private property, even though I reject some of the rhetoric offered by some individuals.

        Even with military firearms training (which is quite good, IMO), some people still can't hit a target 50% of the time, even after significant remedial training.

        Tell me again why we can't get together as liberals and require licensing for EACH AND EVERY type of firearm that someone claims to need for self defense?

        For those of you who don't know - the firearms training described in the diary is the same training given to all members of the military for defensive purposes. E.g. to defense your hospital, to defend your logistics compound, etc.

        Additional training is given to infantry and other units that go on offensive missions.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 01:20:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And let me point out that a passing score of (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VTCC73, Paul1a, Beetwasher, Smoh, Oh Mary Oh

          ~60% hit rate is under non-stressed conditions.

          Even with military firearms training (which is quite good, IMO), some people still can't hit a target 50% of the time, even after significant remedial training.
          A realistic test for use of a firearm in self defense would require a moving shooter with ability to correctly distinguish a threat target from a non-threat.

          A test to shoot accurately and while on the move (e.g. walking down a corridor with targets popping out or up or down, either in front or behind, and some targets would be benign, some would be threats, and some would be mixed.)

          Like that test that ABC did, where all of the participants couldn't even get their gun drawn before they were tagged.  If we required proficiency a lot more people could be clued into how terrible their accuracy is likely to be in a real life situation.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 01:28:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  true hit rate is a lot worse under stress (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SquareSailor, Oh Mary Oh

            But heres something that folks who take a conceal carry class know that other folks might not... Just because you're permitted/trained and carrying a gun doesn't mean you have to employ it in every scenario, or you're even legally able to do so in every scenario.

            Personally, if you give me a scenario where an assailant is running around shooting, if he's likely not focused (on me). I'm taking cover.  If he is focusing on me, and he's running around, he's going to have a hard time hitting me, so I'm still going to cover.  In most states, I still have a duty to retreat outside of my home anyway, so quickly finding cover first is always the right move in a firefight. Good classes/training reinforce this.

            A person can only use their carry weapon in defense of their own life or the life of a 3rd party, usually after reasonable available avenues of retreat have been exhausted.  It's pretty hard to justify shooting somebody in self defense who's moving like you describe.

            •  By testing in a moving situation (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Paul1a, Beetwasher, Smoh, Oh Mary Oh

              By testing in a moving situation, you let people see how well or how poorly they react to being surprised, whether they can judge friendly/foe and fire quickly.

              It's the closest simulation I can think of to the stress of a real situation where the shooter (or intruder) will almost always have the element of surprise. And of course the first tested item would be whether the test subject dropped to kneeling or took cover.  Having the test subject be the one moving, keeps a heart rate up, with blood pressure up, etc. breathing and shooting techniques become very important.

              I agree completely, that the smartest thing in many scenarios is simply going to be to take cover or make yourself a smaller target.

              But until people get to see how poorly they perform under even a little stress, people will continue to have an inflated sense of their ability to use a gun for self defense.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 03:16:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  most police and military know this (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SquareSailor, PavePusher

                the bulk of trainers come from a military/police background.  The good trainers have a verifiable record in combat.  

                They also know that the BS games played on police/military recruits to try and simulate the stress of life/death decisions in combat, in retrospect, do very little to actually acclimate somebody to what it will be like to try and defend themselves in actual combat.

                IMO the military gets this and does a better job than Law Enforcement.  No trainer is going to try or back implementing a program like this for civilians because the safety risk is simply too high for what little advantage it would give to a student.  

                If anything, there's the bigger risk of instilling a bigger false sense of security then the training was trying to reduce in the first place ("don't worry, I've received combat stress training in xxx-class, I'm not worried").

            •  that's nice . . . and, uh . . . . (5+ / 0-)
              A person can only use their carry weapon in defense of their own life or the life of a 3rd party, usually after reasonable available avenues of retreat have been exhausted.  It's pretty hard to justify shooting somebody in self defense who's moving like you describe.
              what the hell difference does that ANY of that make if the gun-carrier can't hit the broad side of a battleship when he needs to. . . . ?

              Florida requires its CCW holders to fire ONE ROUND to qualify.  ONE ROUND.  One.  O-N-E.  One.

              Does that sound to YOU like enough, uh, "training", to make someone a competent defensive shooter?

              Cops also can only use their weapons in defense of their own life or the life of a 3rd party.  Cops fire considerably more than ONE FUCKING ROUND to qualify for that.

              So please by all means explain to me: if Person A required X training to be able to competently defend life with a gun, then why in bloody heavens should Person B with the same gun NOT be required to have the very same training?

              Or does "freedomz and liberteez" give untrained people the magical ability to shoot straight all of a sudden.

              •  in your scenario, is a LE officer person a? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SquareSailor

                and a civilian person b?

                LE training has more to do with lawful use of force over a wide spectrum of force:  empty handed, baton, pepper spray, taser, firearm (long gun, shotgun, pistol).  Different departments hold different standards.  

                Civilians do not have these methods available to them, as a cop, I would need to know when I am justified employing what level of force at what time.  As a civilian, I'm not justified in using any force except in defense of my own life.  You can't compare police training and civilian carry training for this reason.

                In terms of range time, 1 round for a Folirica permitted civilan, vs about 40 rounds per year for a LE officer,a dated Uof C study shows it doesn't matter much.  Police were 1200 times more likely to injure an innocent civilian with their service weapon then a civilian ( granted, police are in this situation more often, and there's fewer of them then the population of gun owners, I'd call the whole study a wash).

                I wouldn't hold Police training as any golden standard considering the data.

                •  I thought my question was pretty clear, but if not (5+ / 0-)

                  I apologize for being unclear and will ask again . . . .

                  Why should a citizen with a CCW for defending life with a gun not be required to pass the same level of training that a cop gets for defending life with the very same gun?

                  Do the Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms give citizens the magical ability to shoot straight when exercising those rights, or is there some level of training required to do that?

                  •  Ok, thats what I had though, sorry about that. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SquareSailor
                    Why should a citizen with a CCW for defending life with a gun not be required to pass the same level of training that a cop gets for defending life with the very same gun?
                    From a classroom perspective, they have about the same level of training.  Police in the Illinois academy have a 20 hour block of instruction on use of force.  CCW permit holders have to take 4-5hours of instruction on use of deadly force.

                    They're not equal because a police officer has a wider degree of force options available to them starting from when to use force when detaining an individual, to when and how much force they can use defending themselves from attack (it's not simply joint/pressure point manipulation  straight to gunshot).

                    A civilian has no options for use of force available, the exception being self defense of ones life in the face of a lethal threat. It's a shorter class for civilans because theres less subject matter and a narrower subset of circumstances for them to legally act under.

                    In terms of how much training will make you a straight-shootin' crackerjack, neither civilan or law enforcement have the right answer.  However this recent incident and this one show that if your bar for 'safe' use of force is the police standard, you should possibly reconsider.

                    •  hang on there, young Jedi . . . . (5+ / 0-)
                      From a classroom perspective, they have about the same level of training.  Police in the Illinois academy have a 20 hour block of instruction on use of force.  CCW permit holders have to take 4-5hours of instruction on use of deadly force.
                      Here in Florida you are required to have three hours in a classroom (the basic gun safety course for a hunting license meets the requirements--and you can even take a qualifying gun safety course online) and are required to fire ONE ROUND from the instructor's gun. Then they take your fingerprints for their files, and you write out a check.

                      That's all you need to become a bad-ass gun-toting crime-stopping street superhero in Florida and go shoot black kids who look like thugs to you.

                      Anyone see anything wrong with that picture . . . . ?

                      PS---I'm quite aware that most cops can't hit the broad side of a barn door under fire.  I'm a little puzzled why anyone would think a civilian with three hours of training and one expended round under his belt would, uh, do any better.

                      •  I'm puzzled why you would think any of us (0+ / 0-)

                        would take the position that people can shoot just as well under stress as they can under duress, and possibly while being shot at in return?

                        Where have you seen that here?

                        •  maybe from all the superhero fantasies about how (5+ / 0-)

                          "I could have stopped this or that mass shooter or mugger or whatever if only I had been there with a gun.  My cool steely ninja nerves would have dropped that bad guy right in his tracks, WITHOUT hitting half the bystanders with my stray shots. . . . . .and that's why I carry a gun !!!"

                          But now I am the one who is puzzled----if CCWers know they won't be able to hit the broad side of a battleship if they actually need to, ya know, shoot at anybody, then why the hell do they carry a gun to begin with?  Spray and pray? Hope their constitutional rightz will give them magical shooting-straight powers? The gods of justice will guide their bullets?

                          Oh, and since your state has pretty extensive training requirements for a CCW and mine has barely more than a note from one's Mommy, can I assume you'd be in favor of universal Federal standards that all states must meet, so we don't get more morans in Flori-duh shooting unarmed black kids in their white neighborhoods?

                          Or would that be, ya know, rightz freedomz government tyranny they want to take our gunz omigod liberteez !!!! and all that. (yawn)

                          •  hyperbole isn't your best friend (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            There's a pretty wide margin between 'not shooting your best' and 'not hitting the braod side of a battleship'.

                            This women did a good job hitting her target. I don't care to share my war stories with internet bloggers, but suffice it to say after a 10 year stint in the Army, I know the difference between how I shoot on a 'one way' range and how I shoot on a 'two way' range...  On the one-way range, one ragged hole where the 9/10 ring was, on the two-way range, I'd call it 'dinner plate' accuracy.

                            As for national carry standards?  Yes please.  There's currently a confusing array of state laws, which do not mesh, and do not hold to a common standard.  I would love to not have to carry four different weapons cards, with different expiration dates, which have to be renewed on different schedules, costing different amounts of dollars.  A single permit, to carry in all 50 states, used to buy firearms and ammunition, that any citizen can get with a clean background and reasonable cost and training.  No arguments here, that would make my life a lot less complicated.

                            In the meantime take your hero fantasy bullshit hyperbole someplace else please, it has no place in an adult conversation.

            •  There's a rather large difference between (4+ / 0-)

              "knowing" something, in the sense of having had somebody mumble it once while standing in front of a powerpoint, versus knowing something in the sense of having a fully operational comprehension to the extent that one's behavior will reliably be conditioned upon that knowledge.

              And there's an even larger difference between knowing in the sense I just described, and giving a rats-ass about what that uptight concealed-carry instructor just said.

              Nothing in the 2nd amendment promises or endorses concealed carry, yet the clowns just can't help but assert their right to imperil their fellow citizens.

              To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

              by UntimelyRippd on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 06:11:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  In all states the requirement to retreat... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Silvia Nightshade

              only apples if you can do so safely with out harm to others.

              If someone is standing in the parking lot waving a bat around and you're locked inside your car, pulling out that AR-15 and shooting him is not self defense.  

              If he has blocked your car and is beating on the window trying to break in, you don't have to go out the other side of the car.  you can't get out safely to escape.

              Most of the required to retreat laws were aimed at stoping the "gentleman duels".  You can safely retreat from a duel.

              Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

              by DrillSgtK on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:12:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  ABC? The "test" that was rigged like the.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose

            "exploding gas tanks"?

            You need to study up on some facts....

            Your hate-mail will be graded.

            by PavePusher on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 07:32:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sources please nt (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Paul1a

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 07:36:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here you are. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose

                http://www.campuscarry.com/...

                Discussed and disected at a fellow Democrat web site: http://www.democraticunderground.com/...

                Your hate-mail will be graded.

                by PavePusher on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 08:27:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'll accept your assertion that the filming (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Paul1a, Oh Mary Oh, Smoh

                  was not a true experiment, as in a double blind test.

                  What was not rigged is how each of the students reacted to the surprise of the interruption. IIRC 4 of 5 made the simplest mistake of all when they stood up instead of taking cover.

                  IIRC only one of them immediately sought cover behind the desk.

                  And one of them, being overly confident BECAUSE they had a gun, stood up and presented a stationary full torso target will his gun go stuck in his clothing.

                  The ABC test is not what I would recommend. If it was up to me, I would construct a walkway, through a tunnel of varying width, with features that will distract and/or surprize, such as are constructed for a haunted house. The test taker's objective would be to take cover, or at least crouch down, assess the situation, evaluate friend or foe, and then shoot if they decide foe.

                  The point being, that it takes A LOT of practice to be able to shoot accurately on demand in a fluid situation. The vast majority of the time, the shooter will have the advantage of surprise. And in Aurora didn't the shooter effectively disable any would be citizen response, by using the smoke or teargas to conceal his position?

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 08:56:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not neccesarily a LOT of practice..... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Patrick Costighan, FrankRose

                    but certainly more than 30 minutes familiarity and then being dressed in completely unsuitable clothing (that hasn't been practiced in) and set against a fully briefed/trained/experienced assailant.

                    Note that the Aurora shooter was not particularly well-trained by the standards you are hypothesizing.  He did use tear-gas, but it's highly dependent on circumstances/physiology whether it is an irritant or incapacitant.  

                    Almost every movie theater I've been to has been well-lit enough by the projection, for me to hit a target standing at the front of the theater.  And he didn't, to my knowledge, take any cover.

                    Surprise is an advantage, not a guarantee.  Else there would be no successful defenses with guns... and yet there are thousands.  Not a reasonable excuse to disarm intended victims.

                    Your hate-mail will be graded.

                    by PavePusher on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 09:49:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  The ABC test was flawed and skewed (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LilithGardener, FrankRose

                    The attacker knew who had the only weapon in the room and every time made that person the second target after 'shooting' the teacher.

                    Had there been more than one armed subject or had the shooter been unaware of where the armed subject was, the test would have been much different in outcome.

                    Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

                    by DrillSgtK on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:17:20 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  I have to respectfully disagree (5+ / 0-)

          that

          to restrict firearm ownership to 1 or a few guns
          Is indeed infringement.

          Who gets to decide how many is a few?  A few to me is one handgun, one long gun, one shotgun, and a spare of any of the above.  To a collector, a few may mean 'just colt 1911's prior to 1950. To a hoplophobe, the fact that I privately own any firearms is one too many.

          I still submit that once a person is found to be fit to own a firearm, the one's they own are their own business.

          •  then, what to do about the pesky AR-15's? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher, ancblu

            I have three uppers for mine.  Depending on which is attached radically alters the performance, balistics,  and safety envelope of the weapon.

            If I qualify with the ar-15 with it's 'native' upper/bore in 5.56, a fair qualification is the same Army standard I was held to  a decade ago, with targets from 50 to 400m.  Swap to the 22lr upper, and I wish you well hitting a target past 150m (100m is about right for a 'bullseye', 150 you're lucky to still be on the paper).  Put on the 6.5 Grendel, and now 800m  on-target shots are totally realistic, and probably should be testable.

            Only the lower gets counted as a 'gun' by law, but what about the uppers?

            •  The AR-15 isn't one gun. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Paul1a, Beetwasher, Silvia Nightshade

              The new level of modularity that is the AR-15 puts it in a class by itself. It's many guns, depending on which pieces the owner has purchased.

              If we accept that the AWB is a flawed bill, we need to go to a graduated system, where each and every model of firearm is on a list according to what kind of menace they may pose.

              Each level would be a certain estimated level of potential menace. The higher the level, the higher the training/licensing/registration/secure storage, etc. required.

              A - fully automatic anything - highest level of potential menace
              B - semi automatic handgun - level of potential menace is high because handguns are easily concealed.
              C - semi automatic long gun - lower level of potential menace because it's harder to carry it concealed
              D - revolvers and other multi-shot hand guns
              E - long guns - not magazine fed, etc.

              The least menace is a rifle which involves loading only 1 bullet or shotgun loading only 2 shells.

              Forgive me if the language above is a bit awkward. I'm trying to avoid jargon so those who never handled a gun may be able to follow the argument.

              Bullets could be regulated the same way:
              Class A bullets - highest possibility for menace to the public.
              Class B bullets - moderate possibility for menace to the public.
              Class C bullets - least possibility for menace to the public.
              etc.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 02:14:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  if we do that for AR-15s, what about shotguns? (0+ / 0-)

                Same problem, but bigger.

                I have three barrels for my 870 too (i'm an engineer, modular stuff is right in my geeky wheelhouse):

                a 18incher, smoothbore, no choke, with rifle sights for 'home defense' (which I'd never use if I still had a functioning rifle, too much liability, more on that later) with buckshot.

                a 28inch vented rib with a collection of chokes, to take anything winged.

                a 24 inch rifled barrel with scope mount for deer (deer hunters in Illinois can only use blackpowder, bows, or shotguns).

                Using fine shot for upland birds, I could get away with hunting about a quarter mile from dwellings.  Using the slug barrel and sabot slugs, its effectively a centerfire rifle in terms of range and danger.

                Then theres those new-fangled 'flite control' shells, that keep patterns tighter out further.  You can hit stuff further, but there' more lethal further out too.

                There's a wide variety concerns in terms of range and needed shooter skills, on a platform as versitle as an AR-15, and arguably just as popular (if not more so, since shotguns are ubiqitous and most likely to not be banned in any particular area).

          •  "Who gets to decide how many is a few?" (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Paul1a, Beetwasher, tytalus, Oh Mary Oh

            It rests on an operational construction of "menace."

            When does private ownership of a firearm obligate the owner to ensure secure storage inside more than a locked front door.

            E.g. that gunFAIL guy who lied to police about a stolen firearm. He had supposedly run out of the house, leaving the house unlocked, to get something to eat. He claimed he returned to find thieves in his home. He had multiple firearms in every room and many more in the attic.

            The guy was clearly a menace. I'll assert without proof he was probably a small-time gun dealer, and someone who knew that had been watching him come and go.

            At what point can society sanction or limit such "collections" to reduce the menace?

            I'm not saying I know where the line is.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 02:04:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I pretty much agree with this (8+ / 0-)

          I am all for the personal right to defend ones self and family.

          On the other hand, I find the Dirty Harry BS of the NRA and far too many gun nuts to be offensive and intellectually juvenile.

          I like guns. I used to own two (three if you count the bb pistol). I also own four bows, lots of arrows, and seven swords, three of which are more than capable of taking off your arm. And a lightsaber, but that's just my go to flashlight, cause it's fun. My wife is very tolerant about the lightsaber. Bless her.

          I got rid of my guns years ago. I don't miss them.

          When I hear LaPierre or too many of my co-workers waxing poetic about how many guns they own, what they are going to do to the (fill in the racial slur) who "home invade" them, their pre-determined fire zones, how they will kill anyone who gets in their face, etc. it makes me crazy. Not one of them has any military training. Not one of them reads enough history (or anything else) to know what they are really talking about. They are just overgrown little boys trash talking and telling masturbatory fantasies about how tough they imagine they are. It's just really sad.

          No real "responsible gun owner" can possibly object to proper licensing, background checks, mandatory gun safes, mandatory fire training on a yearly basis.

          I'm a paramedic. I have to do a MINIMUM of 72 hours of CME every year. And if I fuck up, even if someone doesn't die, I face the possibility of losing my cert and being out of a job. Maybe being sued and losing my house. Maybe going to jail. And I do something I like to think is morally important. Why should gun owners get more of a pass than I do? One fuck up with a gun means someone may very well die or be maimed for life no matter what your level of training. To suggest that guns should not be treated as carefully as my drug box, or that owning and using them should not require at least a minimum of training is absurd.

          Freedom to own guns (a debatable right even under the 2A) does not means an unregulated or absolute right.

        •  Why ask why? (0+ / 0-)

          You know exactly why.

          To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

          by UntimelyRippd on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 06:07:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I am sincerely glad I am not that paranoid (7+ / 0-)

        Honestly.

        It must be terrible to live in such constant unfocused fear.

        Me, if someone breaks into my house (and of course the odds are enormously against that no matter where I live), I'll help them carry everything to their car.  I'll replace it later.  (shrug)

        •  roflmao (4+ / 0-)

          Yes yes, so paranoid. I live in such constant FEAR of getting into a motorcycle crash, I MUST WEAR MY HELMET AND LEATHERS BECAUSE SOMETHING BAD MIGHT HAPPEN. ARGHBLAHRGAHBARG!

          I know you won't understand this, but other people read these threads too: it isn't fear that drives someone to carry a firearm. It's not fear that drives me to wear a seatbelt. It's not fear that drives me to wear my leathers/helmet on a motorcycle.

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 02:10:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  isn't fear, huh . . . . . . . . . . . . (3+ / 0-)

            That's pretty funny.

            The paranoia surrounds all of you like a visible fog.

            Sad.

          •  Hmm. Yeah, you're motorcycle isn't intended (3+ / 0-)

            to kill other people. That's a big distinction.

          •  But the difference in (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, LilithGardener

            your helmet and leathers (and thank god for smart riders like you, seriously) and seatbelt and carrying a weapon lies in the nature of the event you're trying to prevent/protect yourself from/prepare for/whatever turn of phrase is most appropriate.  The gun is carried specifically to avert a deliberate attack on your being (assuming people don't make the choice to attack someone under duress of "You go punch KV or I'll kill you!") which could potentially require lethal force from you to survive.  Your motorcycle leathers/helmet aren't worn to protect you from a deliberate attack directed at you, but more the stupidity of other drivers.

            If someone goofed up and accidentally shot you in the foot while drawing their gun, cleaning it, whatever, sure you could fire back but the person isn't attacking you so there's not much point in returning fire.  A situation requiring you to fire on someone would be some kind of attack directed at you (or perhaps at someone with you, a bystander; the point being it's clearly an attack versus an "oopsie" moment).  So the fear/paranoia argument comes from the idea that while you wear your motorcycle safety gear because of stupidity of others on the road, you carry your gun because of fear of someone's direct malicious action.  I guess you could also have road raging drivers who go after people on bikes, but then I don't know how often that happens (seems like it isn't much since most news stories about traffic crashes are accidents or drunk/otherwise distracted drivers).

            "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

            by Silvia Nightshade on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:04:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Recced for convo. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Silvia Nightshade, FrankRose

              See, I don't see it as fear. It's not an emotional response that drives me to carry. There is a non-zero chance that I could be the victim of an idiot in a cage. There is a non-zero chance that I could be the victim of a criminal.

              The motorcycle thing: the nice thing about a bike is that you're more maneuverable and faster than most cars/trucks on the road. So if I feel like I'm in danger, a twist of the wrist and I'm gone. This has actually led to a speeding ticket but it beats the alternative (broken and bleeding on the side of the road). I have almost been sideswiped, T-boned, and just plain ran-the-fuck-over. I am not a small guy and my bike isn't exactly small:

              link

              But I practice situational awareness whether it's with a firearm or on the motorcycle (usually, also, with a firearm).

              Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

              by KVoimakas on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:15:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not going to tell you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas

                that you're feeling fear/paranoia, just explaining where the argument comes from and why it is inherently different than motorcycle safety.

                And dude, tell me about stupid drivers when it comes to bikes.  My younger brother has a Ninja ZX-14 (I think that's the model number, I know it's a 1400) that he's tuned so it goes faster than the speedometer will report.  But agreed, he usually speeds away from stupid drivers because like you said, it's easy enough to do.  He's never gotten a speeding ticket on his bike, though.  That thing is LOUD though, it makes my chest vibrate when it's running and I'm just standing nearby.  But he's 7'0" so he wanted a bike big enough to fit him, and he's more into the crotch rocket types than the cruising bikes.  My neighbor has a Harley, no idea what year/model as I'm not familiar with them, but man that thing can wake the dead when he starts it.  It shakes my house when he comes and goes (and his garage is right next to my bedroom ;~; ) but I try not to get too upset about it, because he's a truck driver so his schedule is wacky.  So sometimes he leaves at 12am on a Wednesday and comes back when I'm getting up at 4:30am.

                I have also seen first hand what a MINOR bike wreck can do.  My brother was driving to work one morning on a back country road (dark, it was about 5:30am) when he came up to a tight turn and there was gravel all over the road.  He was only going 25mph, but when he turned the bike slid and just sort of fell over into the turn.  He was wearing full gear but had some nasty bruises/scrapes on his left leg from the bike falling on him.  It also snapped off his foot peg (or whatever the word is) on that side, but he continued driving to work because his legs are so long he could put his foot on the passenger one that was still attached.  Crazy.

                He's selling it now, somebody is driving out from Illinois to get it in a few weeks, once the snow clears up.  Mostly because he wants to put the money into tools for his business he wants to start (he's a mechanic with a focus in high performance, port and polishing, dyno/software tuning, etc.).

                "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

                by Silvia Nightshade on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:27:22 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  You distrust your fellow citizens & fear their (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher

          liberties enough that you want to take them away.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 04:36:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  um, hey Frank, maybe people who sleep with their (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Beetwasher, Laconic Lib

            guns in case the homicidal hordes break in to kill them, and who pee their pants over nonexistent secret plots to take away all their guns, shouldn't be talking about "fearing people" and "distrusting fellow citizens" . . . .

            BWAAAA H AH AH AHA HA HA !!!!!

            (Yes, Frank, I am laughing at you.  I am pointing that out because you've already demonstrated you're not sharp enough to figure that out.)

          •  Who's Trying To Kill You Franky? (3+ / 0-)

            And what did you do to piss them off so much that you feel the need to protect yrself so fervently?

            Is it the gubmint?  Is it, you know, "those people"?

            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

            by Beetwasher on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 07:37:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nobody. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas

              I simply don't believe in infringing on the liberties of innocent Americans for perceived security.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 09:02:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Perceived Security? Yeah, if Only All Those Dead (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Laconic Lib

                6 year olds changed their perception they'd still be breathing.

                Or do you mean perceived security of having a gun to protect yr freedumbs and liberteeas.  How many freedumbs have u saved with yr gun, franky?  How many lives have u saved?  How many zombies have u killed?

                This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                by Beetwasher on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 05:06:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The innocent Americans whose liberties (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Patrick Costighan

                  you insist on infringing on had nothing to do with those murders.
                  Over twice as many murders per year are committed with bare hands than by all rifles combined. Does everybody have to wear boxing gloves at all times so that you don't feel so shamelessly frightened?

                  "How many freedoms, lives, zombies....."
                  Same as the number of successful songs you have written.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:08:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  LIBERTEES!!! FREEDUMBSS!!! Squawk! (0+ / 0-)

                    ROFL!

                    Hug your gun tight there Franky, the zombies are comin' to getchya!

                    This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                    by Beetwasher on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:14:44 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I don't trust my fellow citizens (0+ / 0-)

            with guns without some serious training because day-in, day-out, we have news stories about people being killed/injured by guns that indicate those folks aren't responsible with their weapons.

            Do you think there are people out there who shouldn't own guns?  This is not a rhetorical question, but a serious one.  I think there are people who shouldn't be allowed to own guns.  What my hope is, is that we can identify who those people are BEFORE they shoot/kill someone or themselves.

            "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

            by Silvia Nightshade on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:07:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Breakins of an occupied house (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Beetwasher

          Nonviolent property criminals wait until there's nobody at home. It's rational to consider bodily harm possible if someone is doing a hot prowl.

          It's also pretty bloody important to realize that they may simply be a drunk stumbling into the wrong house.

          Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

          by Dogs are fuzzy on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 04:55:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Must be nice to live in a place like that. (0+ / 0-)

          here in Cleveland we have had home invasions that result in the residents getting beaten up and put in the hospital even though they did not resist and told the invaders where the money and jewels were.

          I've gone to to many connivence stores after a robbery where the clerk who did what he was told to do got beaten or shot by the robber.

          People who commit armed or violent robbery are aggressive and enjoy the power of harming others.

          Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

          by DrillSgtK on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:22:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site