Gun ban solution to mass murders?

Then, by your logic, they shouldn't prepare for flat tires.

I have two, not "several"

There are a myriad of factors. Food and/or water shortages, for example. Something like that has the potential to exacerbate many existing tensions.

 

Sig

As I’ve said I’m not sure if I am which in a way is my point – but you have several ‘just in case’ guns and have one in a safe by the side of your bed that you know you can open in under 5 seconds.

Can you address what I’ve said?

You said - My AR and P226 I own because I enjoy shooting them, and they because they are good "just in case" weapons. Looking to get another bolt action rifle for big game hunting, and looking at a Glock as another "just in case" weapon.

One, a couple, several - I think three is several but if you want me to say a couple because you haven’t got the glock yet, that’s fine.

This is bit vague, you seem to be a lot more detailed on guns, which would seem to lean toward my theory. So what would be in your opinion the best ways to offset these problems?

 

I'm not already?

Just asking that you be factual.

Because I own the weapons, they are a reality, thus I can be more detailed. Hard to be detailed about something that hasn't happened, wouldn't you agree? How does that, in any way, "lean toward" your theory?

Best way to offset food and/or water shortages or the resulting, potential, turmoil?

 

Sig

Sorry do you mean you are not ready?

Fine it’s not three guns but just two that you have ‘just in case’ of social upheaval or revolution with one kept in a bedside safe you know you can open in five seconds (oh with you possibly buying another ‘just in case’ gun later)

But you think it could happen that’s why you said you had ‘just in case’ guns. It was so real to you that you wanted ‘just in case’ guns to be ‘prepared’ for it, yet you seem vague on why such a thing would happen.

Smells like evasion - why not give both?

 

Vague? I think, in order to satisfy your curiosity, you demand that I have a crystal ball.

Evasion? Is that what you call asking for clarification? Noted.

Offsetting food/water shortages would be tricky considering where I live (in an urban area) and the fact that I am one man. I have a small plot of yard where I plant a garden during the growing season. I also have a rain bucket to, you guessed it, capture rain water. Still, these would only barely support me, let alone the entire city. Thus, I doubt it would have much of an impact offsetting any social upheaval/violence resulting from any food/water shortages.

 

Is the fastest gun in the west fearful of his opponent?

In Britain, perhaps not. Some people are, and are prepared. There is a difference between traveling from Leicester to Birmingham, and traveling through the Nevada desert, isn't there? There probably is no more likelihood of a flat tyre - but it is prudent to be prepared, isn't it, given it would probably take a little longer than 30 minutes for the AAA to get out to you if you were traveling through the Nevada desert.



If siq is prepared just in case - fear doesn't have to enter the equation.
I think it's a total over-reaction - but there you go.
I don't have to agree with his logic, but I don't have to try and whack a square peg through a round hole - and try my best to portray him as being fearful.
If he says he isn't - then he just falls into the category of a person with guns who is not fearful - you can do your best to twist and turn his words as much as you like - I have no desire to.

It was just a question (ok, several questions). Yes or No.

I'll leave it down to others to take away from your long post what they will.
It's just another assumption.

I read that he said he has guns because at the end of the day he likes guns and wants them.

Well, the opposite to pro-gun is anti-gun.
You say you are not pro-gun or anti-gun - so what are you?
If you have a gun are you a pro-gunner and if you don't you are a anti-gunner?
I'm sure it was just an easier thing to say - but...

"Pro-Gun" (AKA opposed to any and all gun control laws)
http://www.epinions.com/content_4310016132?sb=1

 

Indeed. They are fun to shoot and are useful tools.

 

...what do you mean by 'useful tools'?

Ok, no need to explain, just joking.

 

Sig

So the ONLY thing you can think of is what you can do in individual terms? You don’t think in political terms?

Thank you thank you – one of the strands of my theory is that many pro-gunners think first in an individualist way rather than in a community, political way, and that guns as an equalised (for just in case) is part of that thinking. A ‘just in case’ gun is there just in case of a rise in crime, social problems or political revolution, this I believe can lead to a mentality that can come to ignore the socio-economic or political problems that can be the cause of the crime, social problems or political revolutions.

When you raised the issue of food and/or water shortages, my own thoughts went first to agricultural policies, water management, environmental policies, distribution and processing, population control, etc etc etc. Because such shortages would be a community problem that would be best tackled on the wider political, social and economic stage.

It seems instructive that you instead wondered how much water you could keep in a bucket.

 

Not at all.

I can see we were working from two different scenarios. I was assuming that the turmoil had already started and, as a result, the political system had broken down. I assumed that food stopped being delivered to local stores and that my city water supply was no longer available/reliable. Apparently you weren't assuming that. My mistake. In the scenario you are operating from I do not see turmoil, revolution, and the like, happening. In the scenario where the break down has happened, my butt would try to get to my hometown where my family, both immediate and extended, are thick as fleas.

To your point, I do not consider myself an individualist. I help out when and where I can in my local community. I am active with my local food co-op and help them run classes teaching people how to set up their own gardens and raise chickens in an urban setting. I, often times, share what I grow in my garden with my neighbors and they with me. We each tend to grow different things. None of us planned it that way, but it just worked out that way.

 

sig

Offsetting food/water shortages would be tricky considering where I live (in an urban area) and the fact that I am one man. I have a small plot of yard where I plant a garden during the growing season. I also have a rain bucket to, you guessed it, capture rain water. Still, these would only barely support me, let alone the entire city. Thus, I doubt it would have much of an impact offsetting any social upheaval/violence resulting from any food/water shortages.

So this is your impression of what your world would be like after the whole political system had completely broken down? No government, no police, no economy and where masses of starving people are roving the countryside looking for food?

Anyway what you are basically saying is that in the face of future food and water shortages the actions you are thinking about are not political.

I mean there is the possibility of many problems arising from global warming some of these will be local but others will have to be national and international, same with economic problems that could affect people’s lives, jobs and economic wellbeing etc. And such things have the potential to bring about the social unrest you seem to fear could happen.

In those cases you need to think politically, what are the policies that could offset problems rather than not doing anything or doing things that make things worse.

So just in case, wouldn’t it be better to think politically?

 

Again, I don't fear that unrest.

I agree that, prior to the scenario was I operating from, politics and policies has a very real and crucial role to play. That is why I am already thinking and acting politically (the hows are a topic for another thread). However, just in case politics fails, I am prepared to survive.

 

Sig

Ok you have no fear - and that’s why you have two guns ‘just in case’ of social upheaval and/or revolution with one kept in a bedside safe that you know you can open in five seconds (oh and you are thinking of buying a another ‘just in case’ gun soon).

You are so unafraid that you are thinking of having three ‘just in case’ guns.

Oh of course you think that but it just wasn’t actually said until I brought it up. Can you give an indication of what type of polices you would have of pursued?

Can you at least hint or why not start that other thread?

 

I think that is the problem; he tries to explain/bluntly states - and you go: 'Yeah, yeah, whatever.'

 

Indeed, I am unafraid. Thank you for finally accepting that. You can drop the condescending attitude now. We are both adults.

Again, Balbus, I thought we were operating of a different scenario.

I have already explained a few activities that I am involved in, on the local level, to make people less dependent on grocery stores and more able to supply their own needs. (ie home gardens and chicken coops.)

Another example example: I would work, and am working, against the US decision to allow companies to patent life (this hurts crop farmers who wish to be independent of major seed suppliers, and use their own crop to supply next years seed). That is as far as I will go into that as it is massively off topic.

 

Sig

Not condescension but incomprehension, I mean I’m unafraid and so don’t feel I need a gun you are so unafraid that you wish to have three ‘just in case’ guns with at least one in a safe by your bead which you know you can get out in under 5 seconds.

I’m just pointing out that having easy access to guns does not seemed to calmed many pro-gunners fears, that in fact it seems to have heightened them.

Actually I asked you to cover both.

Oh yes the local level - while saying you’d do nothing for you fellow citizens that you yourself admit are in such dire straits that they are in the gutter.

Thing is that such local activity happens in many places but that doesn’t mean you have to ignore the bigger picture.

That is also happening in many places, I myself have raised money for a campaign against it. But I’ve also campaigned against poverty and its causes, against neoliberal ideas, faulty foreign polices and many other things my wife does even more.

Anyway as I’ve already pointed out attitudes to social problems (and how to fix them) are very important in any gun debate, because they seem to get to the heart of why many people are pro-gun.

 

Again, I have two "just in case" guns. I have them because I can and they are just another tool/precaution to me. No different in my eyes than owning a hammer because one day I may need to hammer some nails, or having a spare tire because one day I may have a flat, or having car insurance because I may be involved in an accident someday.

Who says all pro-gunners "fear" something? I clearly don't but, by your reasoning, I am a pro-gunner.

After the confusion manifested.

They can't help themselves?

I don't ignore the bigger picture. I just have a different idea on how that bigger picture should be handled.

Good for you and your wife.

I don't think they are important because they didn't influence me, a "pro-gunner", in the purchase of my firearms.

 

As usual, when the word "gun" is used in a thread it seems Balbus will show up and using his same old tired arguments, will hijack the thread away from it's original purpose.

This thread's original purpose was to talk about the possibility of anti-depressive drugs being a factor in the mass killings taking place and that perhaps people should looking into that connection.

Balbus, since there has been little or no discussion of the actual OP since you arrived, could you either talk about the OP or leave the discussion and start your own thread to discuss your old tired arguments there.

 

Sig

A hammer was designed to beat metal. I suppose it could be used as a weapon but I’ve never thought of it as such, it resides in my tool box in the basement, and the last time I used it was to put up party decoration a joyous affair.

A tyre was designed as a wheel for a vehicle, I don’t think it could be used as a weapon, its locked in the boot of the car outside. As I’ve said I’m not even sure if it is fit for purpose.

In the UK driving without insurance is a criminal offence. You have to have it is compulsory.

A gun was designed a devise for killing or maiming people it can be used for recreational purposes but it function is as a weapon. Having it for defence is a about intimidation a belief that suppression is a legitimate means of social control.

I ask again what is that?

*

Anyway as I’ve already pointed out attitudes to social problems (and how to fix them) are very important in any gun debate, because they seem to get to the heart of why many people are pro-gun.

Was it not, yet you think of at least two of your guns as for ‘just in case’ your view of your society is that the possibility of social unrest is so great and could lead to you being attacked that you want to have ‘just in case’ guns (and think of getting more) and keep at least one by your bed in a safe you know you can open in 5 seconds.

 

guns are apart of American culture they will never fade away its like the war on drugs