Gun remark makes outdoorsman an outcast

Collin wrote:

From what I gather death is the outcome onelongsong is going for, not just an unfortunate accident.

Well I think onelongsong made some ill advised comments. I don't think his intention before he gets started is to kill. Guess it's how you look at it.

Collin wrote:

Where did I say people weren't allowed to defend themselves, or use force?

Strangely, from your posts I got the impression that you thought that we should all just lie down and take it because some people have had hard lives and that excuses anything they may do. BUT I'm sure I was wrong about that.

Collin wrote:

Well the world isn't black and white.

No it isn't. But why is it ok for some people to use their difficult experiences as an excuse to break the law, and perpertrate violence against others but it's not ok for the victim to use their experience as a reason to respond as they do? Again that's just the impression I got from your posts, I'm sure I misunderstood.

Collin wrote:

Yes, I see onelongsong has a very hard time with it.

"killing your first person is hard. especially if you look into their eyes. but after that it isn't that bad. when you exterminate vermin; you do society a favour."

It sounds like it's only a hard thing to go through once, after that it's nothing, like taking out the trash.

Collin wrote:

Neither do I. But when they go about it with an attitude like onelongsong's, it fills me with disgust. I never said anything against self-defence but when your mentality is set on killing whoever crosses a certain line, I think you have serious problems.

Well I'll post it again, because the impression I got was that this negated whatever it was he was trying to say prior to it. You'll probably tell me you don't agree. Fine. We don't agree.

onelongsong wrote:

i understand. i get a little caught up in the moment and don't choose my words wisely.

Collin wrote:

Yes, I know. Things can get out of control and when you use a gun death is a likely outcome especially if that's your whole plan, killing the vermin.

And again. Because they were only words after all and not actions.

onelongsong wrote:

i understand. i get a little caught up in the moment and don't choose my words wisely.

Sorry at what point did onelongsong say that he "planned" to kill?
I must have missed that.

Collin wrote:

There's a difference. You shoot to defend yourself, your main objective should be your safety, not killing your attacker. And if in protection yourself your attacker is killed so be it, you were put in an (extreme) situation where you had to rely on extreme measures. I probably won't agree with it unless there was no other option at all but hey, that's life.

Well it's nice that you can make that judgement so clearly. Being so sure must give you a lot of comfort. But you admit that you probably won't agree unless you judge that there was no other option so that's good to know.

Collin wrote:

That's the point like I said. When force is necessary, your main objective should be neutralizing the threat, not killing the attacker.

I agree.

Collin wrote:

I have my doubts. He seems to me a very irresponsible gun owner, but what do I know, apparently there are places in the world where it's considered responsible shooting near kids and at old ladies' feet when a simple yell would have sufficed.

But then again, I think he's making a lot of stuff up. So his macho behaviour could all be an act.

Maybe. I guess you need to "walk a mile in his shoes" to understand him.
And believe me, the whole world would benefit you if managed to understand him and he you.

Collin wrote:

Oh I have, I haven't read many things that run counter to his statements here.

Well that's a shame.

Collin wrote:

You're right.

I am? Holy crap!!! Really? Well that's good to know Collin. Maybe if we keep rattling around like this we might be able to come to even more agreement!! Now wouldn't that be good?

Collin wrote:

No, you're right. They should fucking kill the bastards, maim them first if possible. Typical bullshit. If you have a real argument, try again.

That is a real argument Collin. How did you come up with this extreme answer?
And how is your extreme response to this part of my post any better than some of the comments made by onelongsong? The intent appears to be the same to me. Agitate.
It doesn't have to be either completely hand over everything to the person attacking you and take all that they dish out, or shoot and kill them.
Surely there is middle ground?

Collin wrote:

True.

Wow!! Bugger me!! Not more consensus!! Well this could be getting good!

Jeanie wrote:

Strangely, from your posts I got the impression that you thought that we should all just lie down and take it because some people have had hard lives and that excuses anything they may do. BUT I'm sure I was wrong about that.

I never said you should condone their actions because they had hard lives. You talked about understanding. And onelongsong talked about vermin and scum, I pointed out these are people as well and deserve understanding as well..

No it isn't. But why is it ok for some people to use their difficult experiences as an excuse to break the law, and perpertrate violence against others but it's not ok for the victim to use their experience as a reason to respond as they do? Again that's just the impression I got from your posts, I'm sure I misunderstood.

It's not ok, imo. I guess interpreting posts is not as easy is you say it is.

Well I'll post it again, because the impression I got was that this negated whatever it was he was trying to say prior to it. You'll probably tell me you don't agree. Fine. We don't agree.

You're right, I disagree. He could have used fancy words, or said it more wisely, would the message be that much different? I have this theory that true feelings often appear in the heat of the moment.

And again. Because they were only words after all and not actions.

Again, how'd you feel is someone was talking about rape, beating children... (not comparing here) would you say they are just words? If a guy comes here and starts talking that if his wife cheated on him he'd beat her and rape her, would you say, calm down Collin, you misinterpreted his posts, it's only words?

Sorry at what point did onelongsong say that he "planned" to kill?
I must have missed that.

so a kid in an urban area needs to know that if he tries to rob or carjack me; i will shoot him dead.

Doesn't sound like 'I will defend myself' or 'I will shoot him.' It says 'I will shoot dead.'

That is a real argument Collin. How did you come up with this extreme answer?
And how is your extreme response to this part of my post any better than some of the comments made by onelongsong? The intent appears to be the same to me. Agitate.
It doesn't have to be either completely hand over everything to the person attacking you and take all that they dish out, or shoot and kill them.
Surely there is middle ground?

So someone is against death he is for hugging people? No middle ground in your post.

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

what if instead of handguns, we used stun guns? You still had to be licensed and registered, and you would still need to be educated in how to use one properly but this seems like a good idea. You can still defend yourself, and the chances of death are lowered. Comments?

I think this is an interesting idea.

And sounds feasible as an alternative to guns.

I have to admit that stun guns scar the crap out of me too, and I don't know very much about them, but on the surface I think this sounds a much more viable option for America.

lucylespian wrote:

This is not only bleeding obvious, but also probably the original point of the guy who this thrwead started about. But we'll never know because he got howled down so quick by the gun weenies.

Well I don't know lucy, there's been a fair bit of howling from the other side too. I would have like to have heard about it from both sides of the debate.
Some nice, calm, informative points of view from both sides.

I can't see the point to automatic weapons myself but there has been some talk about prairie dogs or something. I mean I think it's obvious that you don't need automatic weapons as a lay person but I'd really like to hear from gun owners and the NRA in particular about why it's so important that people be allowed to own them in America.

onelongsong wrote:

violence begets violence. deadly force will be met by deadly force. i have no problem killing someone to save my life.

so where does it end then?
and i would absolutely put my life or the life of my chilfdren over an attacker. but as i said that does not necessary mean death as a result. but i certainly acknowledge that it could.


as for assault weapons, i consider just about any firearm an assault weapon cause basically that is the intent which which they were manufactured. though i know that's not the accepted definition.
firearms are for killing. it's as simple as that.

onelongsong wrote:

i'd like to know why gun ownership threatens so many people. if i wanted to murder someone i wouldn't use a gun.

It doesn't threaten me, it mystifies me. We really don't have the gun culture here in Australia that you appear to have there in the US.

I say if you need guns in the course of your day to day activities then fine, by all means own a gun. Own several for all I care. But I would question if there is any possible way that you can perform the tasks you do that require a gun in any other way? AND the only reason I ask this question is because over and over again it would appear that guns have been used by some very sick puppies to perpertrate violence against others. And that is because they have had access to them. Many violent interludes between people may have had a very different outcome if guns were not made available to the perpertrator. Do I think that ALL gun owners are irresponsible and not to be trusted with guns? NO. But as shown here in Australia, the whole world does not collapse if guns are not available to the general population other than for agreed purposes. And for that reason I'm glad that they banned automatic weapons here in Australia. I NEVER want to wake up again to the news that some psycho with an automatic weapon is chasing down little girls to shoot them and their mother in full sight and thoroughly enjoying himself as he does it. AND onelongsong, that's not having a go at gun owners at all. I am well aware that in the particular incident of which I speak that we also need to spend a shitload of cash making sure that services are available to the mentally ill and unstable. But I do believe that if you restrict access, then you also restrict the potential for disaster. And I'm just wondering, CAN you do what you need to without an automatic weapon? Before there was automatic weapons what was the procedure? Just curious really.