cracked Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 I'm not a asshat for no reason, bizzatch! Hey Justin, shouldn't you go to bed if you're gonna climb such a big, gnarly mountain tomorrow? Gotta keep up with the posthole machine... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 OK. So Gotterdamerung carries several guns when he's working in Iraq. Scott Harpell carries a gun due to the high likelihood that he is going to be the victim of one of the frequent cougar attacks. And I don't need a gun --Not because I'm a tough guy, although I'm tough enough I suppose, but because: 1. I'm not really worried that cougars or bears are going to attack me. 2. I have been threatened by dogs, but have always been able to respond to the threat without needing a gun. 3. I avoid situations and people involving guns because I've seen too many freakin' wierdo survivalist gun nuts. I'll pass on the gun-toter fly fishing trip, Scott. I'm afraid one of you crazy fokkers will shoot a hole in my float tube.(Besides, I don't have a Canadian fishing license...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 WTF is exact about it? The last time you shot a gun has nothing to do with my "gun education." It does if the last time you shot one was when you were 12 years old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 2, 2004 Author Share Posted June 2, 2004 WTF is exact about it? The last time you shot a gun has nothing to do with my "gun education." It does if the last time you shot one was when you were 12 years old. OK, read slower this time. Your gun education is in no way related to, and can in no way affect, my gun education. Are you following now? Now if you are trying to say that you are more familiar with guns than I am at this present time, then just go ahead and say it. Instead of trying to employ some oblique smartass comment, and messing up. And by the way, I said ".357", not "gun." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 This has been a fun thread to observe. I've noticed several things. One, guys like Gotterdammerung and Harpell (and I'll throw myself in there) only state that they carry guns as their chosen mode of self-protection. Except for Harpell mentioning his concern over cougars, no mention of 'fear' has been made by these guys as reason for carrying. Two, the gun-haters involved in this thread (JoshK, skeezix, ashw) have taken ample opportunity to deride the other side for their own choices. Why, I ask? A person's choice of self-defense is their own. Scott, myself, and/or G'rung don't castigate non-gun-carriers as morons or stupid, to my knowledge. As individuals, we all have our own level of acceptable risk, safety, and threat, and we react and prepare accordingly. I don't presume to call skeezix an idiot because he feels safe walking down Rainier Ave. S. at 2 a.m. in a white hooded sweatshirt without a plan for self-protection. He obviously feels safe taking that risk. Fine, that's his choice. Alternately, it is my choice to carry when I know I'll be walking certain parts of Seattle's downtown late at night. I am beginning to believe that the derisive attitude of those of the anti-gun slant comes from fear. Not fear of attack or injury, but fear of discovering that the world is not the soft, cuddly, friendly place they have created in their mind. The fear that there ARE people who will beat you unconscious for the $10 in your pocket. The fear that when confronted, they will be forced to make a choice to defend themselves and they will be rendered impotent. The fear that there IS harshness in the world, and that they lack the fortitude to respond. The fear that the bubble will burst. I am also starting to see that the source of this dismissive attitude comes from lack of knowledge coupled with arrogance. Because they have no knowledge of safe gun practices, they have no faith in others to carry and utilize said knowledge. Those with lack of exposure to guns seem to think that we're all just a hair trigger away from indiscriminately blazing away (note skeezix's comment above regarding having his float tube shot full of holes). Sure, much of this is couched as humor, but I would posit that there is an underlying fear there. Humor is a common tool for masking fear and/or uncertainty. The bottom line is about choice. I make my choices; Scott makes his; Josh makes his; G'rung makes his. We all select our own modes of self-protection and, hopefully, accept the outcomes of those choices. Be safe, everyone. Greg_W Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Good points. I apologize for calling Scott Harpell an idiot (I already PM'd him to that effect). I think I poorly communicated my position. I'm not a gun hater. I was a gunner in the army. I trained with m16, .50cal, TOW, 81mm mortar, carried a .45, etc...like everybody else in the infantry. When I said "I don't need a gun," I meant that I'm not afraid of big predators in the woods, and I'm going to avoid Rainier Ave. S. at 2am. Being a "tough guy" is not important to me. I believe it would be an over-generalization to call EVERY gun owner a survivalist wierdo, but I can't relate to gun fanciers and that whole camo-wearing gun show-attending scene. As far as the initial post about the guy that shot the guy with the dogs ...I think there was probably a better way to handle that situation that wouldn't have resulted in loss of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbw1966 Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 And I imagine those gun-show attendees would think your choice of hobbies equally ridiculous. One persons hobby is another persons illness. I agree with Greg that its a matter of personal choice and the society we choose to live in is founded upon a respect for personal choice. I personally do not think its necessary to pack heat on a daily basis around town or in the backcountry but thats my choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 2, 2004 Author Share Posted June 2, 2004 This has been a fun thread to observe. I've noticed several things. One, guys like Gotterdammerung and Harpell (and I'll throw myself in there) only state that they carry guns as their chosen mode of self-protection. Except for Harpell mentioning his concern over cougars, no mention of 'fear' has been made by these guys as reason for carrying. Two, the gun-haters involved in this thread (JoshK, skeezix, ashw) have taken ample opportunity to deride the other side for their own choices. Why, I ask? A person's choice of self-defense is their own. Scott, myself, and/or G'rung don't castigate non-gun-carriers as morons or stupid, to my knowledge. As individuals, we all have our own level of acceptable risk, safety, and threat, and we react and prepare accordingly. I don't presume to call skeezix an idiot because he feels safe walking down Rainier Ave. S. at 2 a.m. in a white hooded sweatshirt without a plan for self-protection. He obviously feels safe taking that risk. Fine, that's his choice. Alternately, it is my choice to carry when I know I'll be walking certain parts of Seattle's downtown late at night. I am beginning to believe that the derisive attitude of those of the anti-gun slant comes from fear. Not fear of attack or injury, but fear of discovering that the world is not the soft, cuddly, friendly place they have created in their mind. The fear that there ARE people who will beat you unconscious for the $10 in your pocket. The fear that when confronted, they will be forced to make a choice to defend themselves and they will be rendered impotent. The fear that there IS harshness in the world, and that they lack the fortitude to respond. The fear that the bubble will burst. I am also starting to see that the source of this dismissive attitude comes from lack of knowledge coupled with arrogance. Because they have no knowledge of safe gun practices, they have to faith in others to carry and utilize said knowledge. Those with lack of exposure to guns seem to think that we're all just a hair trigger away from indiscriminately blazing away (note skeezix's comment above regarding having his float tube shot full of holes). Sure, much of this is couched as humor, but I would posit that there is an underlying fear there. Humor is a common tool for masking fear and/or uncertainty. The bottom line is about choice. I make my choices; Scott makes his; Josh makes his; G'rung makes his. We all select our own modes of self-protection and, hopefully, accept the outcomes of those choices. Be safe, everyone. Greg_W A well-reasoned, thoughtful argument. But you make many assumptions that are biased. First, that you are unsafe without carrying a gun. This is a pretty clear feeling among people who carry guns; that someday you will be faced with a dangerous situation that only having a gun will be able solve. While I agree that a gun is a very powerful means of defending yourself, I think it's pretty narrow-minded to think that carrying a gun makes you safe. You get attacked from behind, or someone gets close enough to wrestle you, or god forbid they have guns, then your advantage is nullified. Not to mention if you pull out a gun, you are more likely to be shot by anyone else who happens to have one. And they don't have one, they may take yours and shoot you with it. Now picture this. Every single person walking down the street is carrying a gun. Now every little dispute has the potential of turning into a gun-battle massacre. I'm sure you can think of many people whom you would rather not see packing heat. It is an undeniable certainty that if more people carried guns, more people would be shot to death. As to our "fear" you speak of. It is belittling and all to convenient for you to describe people who are anti-gun as deluded, and this borders on insult. Of course we know the world is dangerous. Of course we know that there will be times of powerlessness and disaster. But the point is, we believe that having more guns around is only going to increase the probability of being shot by someone. This is simple statistical logic, and once you factor in the aggression-prone nature of human beings you have a recipe for widespread slaughter. And it's already happening as we speak. There is a particular argument, that most "bad people" or "outlaws" carry guns, so we need to have guns ourselves to protect ourselves. But the irony is that for every gun manufactured for sale to an honest and responsible gun enthusiast, there is one more gun that can potentially fall into the hands of someone who would use it criminally. You assert that responsible gun owners know when not to "indescriminately" fire their weapons. Well this is exactly what were talking about in the first place. Who knows if the shooter was being descriminate when he plugged 3 rounds into a guy's chest? Are we just supposed to trust that being licensed to carry a gun automatically makes you safe with a gun in your hands? I think this is riduculous. The bottom line of my fear is that I don't trust everybody with guns. I don't even trust cops with guns anymore, after several people including women have been shot to death in the Northwest without ever producing a weapon. The point is that a gun turns a little bit of and uncertainty into instant death. No I do not find that acceptable. Choice? I don't want everybody and their mommy to have the choice to blow me away at any moment. People make bad choices all of the time. I don't want someone else's bad choice to be my death warrant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Well, if my fly rod or guitar (hobbies) fall into the wrong hands, deaths will not likely result (although if I'm having a bad casting day on the river, I could take someone's eye out --most likely my own). The politics of handguns in this country comes from the statistic of unnecessary handgun-related deaths, and the struggle between advocates of tighter gun control and the NRA. I agree with those that argue that guns too often fall into the wrong hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 A well-reasoned, thoughtful argument. But you make many assumptions that are biased. First, that you are unsafe without carrying a gun. This is a pretty clear feeling among people who carry guns; that someday you will be faced with a dangerous situation that only having a gun will be able solve. While I agree that a gun is a very powerful means of defending yourself, I think it's pretty narrow-minded to think that carrying a gun makes you safe. You get attacked from behind, or someone gets close enough to wrestle you, or god forbid they have guns, then your advantage is nullified. Not to mention if you pull out a gun, you are more likely to be shot by anyone else who happens to have one. And they don't have one, they may take yours and shoot you with it. Now picture this. Every single person walking down the street is carrying a gun. Now every little dispute has the potential of turning into a gun-battle massacre. I'm sure you can think of many people whom you would rather not see packing heat. It is an undeniable certainty that if more people carried guns, more people would be shot to death. As to our "fear" you speak of. It is belittling and all to convenient for you to describe people who are anti-gun as deluded, and this borders on insult. Of course we know the world is dangerous. Of course we know that there will be times of powerlessness and disaster. But the point is, we believe that having more guns around is only going to increase the probability of being shot by someone. This is simple statistical logic, and once you factor in the aggression-prone nature of human beings you have a recipe for widespread slaughter. And it's already happening as we speak. There is a particular argument, that most "bad people" or "outlaws" carry guns, so we need to have guns ourselves to protect ourselves. But the irony is that for every gun manufactured for sale to an honest and responsible gun enthusiast, there is one more gun that can potentially fall into the hands of someone who would use it criminally. You assert that responsible gun owners know when not to "indescriminately" fire their weapons. Well this is exactly what were talking about in the first place. Who knows if the shooter was being descriminate when he plugged 3 rounds into a guy's chest? Are we just supposed to trust that being licensed to carry a gun automatically makes you safe with a gun in your hands? I think this is riduculous. The bottom line of my fear is that I don't trust everybody with guns. I don't even trust cops with guns anymore, after several people including women have been shot to death in the Northwest without ever producing a weapon. The point is that a gun turns a little bit of and uncertainty into instant death. No I do not find that acceptable. Choice? I don't want everybody and their mommy to have the choice to blow me away at any moment. People make bad choices all of the time. I don't want someone else's bad choice to be my death warrant. ashw_justin: I did not make the "assumption that without a gun I am unsafe." You did not read that in my post. The fact is, I go many places without carrying; I do not feel unsafe at these times. It's about assessment of risk, as I stated. While your "what-ifs" really bring in the dollars to the coffers of anti-gun organizations, they don't really have any basis in fact. Don't speak for all gun-haters, justin, speak for yourself. My OPINIONS are based on observation and interaction with others. They may only apply to the small sample set that I have been exposed to, but it's the data I have. We all base our opinions on such information. Your assertion that widespread slaughter has already started is baseless. Economist John Lott has compiled much statistical data showing that the presence, and prevalence of concealed-carry permits correlate with lower crime rates, and the opposite is also shown. As others have said here, many states require training before a CWP is issued. So, yes, those people are somewhat educated on safety. Others of us have been taught from youth or are self-taught. A final note: a gun does not make me safe. It is a tool to insure my safety and the safety of my loved ones. It is up to me to listen to my instincts and make smart choices to keep myself safe. BUT, when a curveball is thrown at me, then I have tools at my disposal to insure my safety. Greg_W Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loose_Brie Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Why do I think you are wrong to carry a gun in the wilderness? One thing we can say for certain from the original story. If the shooter had not brought a gun. The victim would not be dead. Its really that simple. Its not just a matter of personal freedom and choice. You bringing a gun to go hiking endangers me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 I stay away from places and situations where I might feel the need to carry a weapon. It works for me. What happened to the spray? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 2, 2004 Author Share Posted June 2, 2004 (edited) Greg_W, I respect your fairly voiced opinions, but... ...really bring in the dollars to the coffers of anti-gun organizations... There may be a conspiracy to take the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens but I'm fairly certain that anti-gun advocates would rather have limited funds than be shot to death... and let's not EVEN get into the influence of the lobbying of the firearm industry. But just look what happened to cigarettes. And they're not nearly as lethal as guns! Edited June 2, 2004 by ashw_justin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Why do I think you are wrong to carry a gun in the wilderness? One thing we can say for certain from the original story. If the shooter had not brought a gun. The victim would not be dead. Its really that simple. Its not just a matter of personal freedom and choice. You bringing a gun to go hiking endangers me. What about the other side of your hypothetical ending? If the shooter had NOT carried a gun, he may have serious injuries from the dogs that were charging him; one of which, as noted in the article, had a HISTORY of aggressive, dangerous behavior. My carrying a gun whilst hiking does not endanger you in the least; unless you attempt to threaten my life or that of my hiking partners. From my side of it, my carrying a gun in close proximity to you provides YOU with an added measure of security, as I would come to your aid if you were in danger. However, if you don't want such help that's fine; I'll leave you to your fate. Justin, my point about money flowing into the coffers of anti-gun organizations was that these "chicken little" scenarios like the ones you brought up and the hyped "facts" are what AGS, Brady Campaign, et al. use to justify their efforts and appeal to donors. Without exploiting fear, they have no power to incite their patrons. Greg_W Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swaterfall Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Justin. Quit spraying . Let's go CLIMB!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 2, 2004 Author Share Posted June 2, 2004 Hey man, I have 59 minutes left to spray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 2, 2004 Author Share Posted June 2, 2004 Without exploiting fear, they have no power to incite their patrons. Well I have the exact same view of the gun interests. "They're taking away you're rights" and "one day you will need to protect yourself" and everybody's favorite "from my cold, dead hands!" Oh yeah and "Deyh tuk our jobs!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loose_Brie Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Why do I think you are wrong to carry a gun in the wilderness? One thing we can say for certain from the original story. If the shooter had not brought a gun. The victim would not be dead. Its really that simple. Its not just a matter of personal freedom and choice. You bringing a gun to go hiking endangers me. What about the other side of your hypothetical ending? If the shooter had NOT carried a gun, he may have serious injuries from the dogs that were charging him; one of which, as noted in the article, had a HISTORY of aggressive, dangerous behavior. My carrying a gun whilst hiking does not endanger you in the least; unless you attempt to threaten my life or that of my hiking partners. From my side of it, my carrying a gun in close proximity to you provides YOU with an added measure of security, as I would come to your aid if you were in danger. However, if you don't want such help that's fine; I'll leave you to your fate. Justin, my point about money flowing into the coffers of anti-gun organizations was that these "chicken little" scenarios like the ones you brought up and the hyped "facts" are what AGS, Brady Campaign, et al. use to justify their efforts and appeal to donors. Without exploiting fear, they have no power to incite their patrons. Greg_W Greg, You are right. There is a chance the shooter would have been injured. I do not mean to minimize that. We have ways of dealing with that. The dogs would have been put down. The owner likely arested and at a minimum a civil suit would have been filed. Does this make up for serious injury to the shooter? I do not know and it is not for me to say. I for one know if given the choice of potentially being mauled or taking 3 rounds to the chest, I'd take the mauling. As to your carrying a gun adding to my security? I believe you when you say you would come to my aid. I think that is the mark of a good person. However, I feel being in the proximity of you and your gun, no matter how well trained and level headed you are, reduces my security. And yes the anti-gun lobby do use scare tactics. However this is totally valid. Guns do scare people. They should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 i am solidly for reforms in the gun laws in this country. h/e, i have had an occasion or two where i've felt unsafe on the trail. i'm not worried about shooting cougars or bears. it's some the "unique" persons one occasionally encounters. i don't do it often, but on occasion i've found myself on a trail, alone. it hasn't happened when i've been alone but there has been a couple of times i've run into people who made me grateful i wasn't alone. in particular, on one hike w/my SO and son in the Olympics we encountered someone w/3 AGGRESSIVE dogs off leash. These dogs were being aggressive w/our dogs which were on their leashes. Long story short the situation resulted in a substantial verbal altercation between my SO and person X that wasn't far from being physical. He said some not pleasant things about me and our dogs. I'm certainly glad that I wasn't alone. It has made me think that carrying some form of protection when i'm travelling alone wouldn't be a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 h/e, i have had an occasion or two where i've felt unsafe on the trail. i'm not worried about shooting cougars or bears. it's some the "unique" persons one occasionally encounters. i don't do it often, but on occasion i've found myself on a trail, alone. it hasn't happened when i've been alone but there has been a couple of times i've run into people who made me grateful i wasn't alone. in particular, on one hike w/my SO and son in the Olympics we encountered someone w/3 AGGRESSIVE dogs off leash. These dogs were being aggressive w/our dogs which were on their leashes. Long story short the situation resulted in a substantial verbal altercation between my SO and person X that wasn't far from being physical. He said some not pleasant things about me and our dogs. I'm certainly glad that I wasn't alone. It has made me think that carrying some form of protection when i'm travelling alone wouldn't be a bad idea. Gee, doncha wish you owned a gun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Greg, I've actually tried to keep my dislike for guns out of this thread. My only beef was with some dude blowing a way a dog owner cause his dogs got off leash and got mean to him. Gun or not, you don't go killing people for that. I think the self defense argument is bullshit. He could have just as easily shot the dogs without shooting the man. My opinion is the "self-defense" finding is easy and lazy for the cops as it doesn't require much more work. The fact that the guy was licensed to carry or not is irrelevant. You just dont go blowing people away when you feel the least bit threatened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 We had quite a heated discussion about this one yesterday. One person thought that the dog owner might have been using his pack of wild dogs (one of which is a service dog) to randomly assault other hikers, and that he was running to incite the dogs to violence after the first warning shot was fired. What an ass. I'm with JoshK on this one. There is very little in this story for gun rights (or restrictions), and a whole lot on an asshole that probably shouldn't be carrying a gun at all. Had the dogs been shot first, then the other guy, I might believe the self defense theory. I'm not a fan of lawsuits, but I hope this guy gets a massive wrongful death lawsuit slapped on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 I believe we've already had this discussion, and collectively we came to the conclusion that the world would be a safer place if EVERYONE carried a gun. We came to this conclusion through reasoned analysis, so please do not dispute. And for people unable to afford the safety provided by gun-ownership, I believe some form of government grant program could be put into effect. Now I know this reeks of "socialism" to some of you, but you must keep in mind the positives for humanity as a whole; sometimes a little bit of collective sacrifice is needed for the good of all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbw1966 Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 So, back in the good ol' wild west, would a man shoot another man because his dogs rushed him, or would the man shoot the dogs? God knows there were no frickin leash laws back then. Seems pretty chickenshit to me to shoot a man three times in the chest because his dogs are charging ya. Obviously the dogs were not the problem or the shooter would have been mauled or at the very least the dogs would be dead too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 I believe we've already had this discussion, and collectively we came to the conclusion that the world would be a safer place if EVERYONE carried a gun. We came to this conclusion through reasoned analysis, so please do not dispute. And for people unable to afford the safety provided by gun-ownership, I believe some form of government grant program could be put into effect. Now I know this reeks of "socialism" to some of you, but you must keep in mind the positives for humanity as a whole; sometimes a little bit of collective sacrifice is needed for the good of all. To be totally fair, the dogs should be given guns too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.