Beyond the Bullet - Comments Page 2

On gun violence in a post-gun-violence society.

My condolences to Virginia Tech from one who hopes he will never fully understand.…
Read comments below, or read this article from the beginning.

Article comments

  • 26 - MCH

    Apr 26, 2007 at 10:58 am

    "It indicates a willingness to fight for what you believe is right. We could use more of that in the US today."
    - Nalle/Populi

    Unless of course it comes to actually enlisti...uh,oops..."MCH Exception" self-imposed...

  • 27 - Clavos

    Apr 26, 2007 at 11:27 am

    Nice gangbang, Chris and emmy. Talk about strange bedfellows!

    See, you two have more in common and are more alike than either of you will admit.

    You just seem to like killing things, Dave. Dogs, snakes, whatever, just doesn't matter, right?

    Can't speak for Dave, but my father began to teach me how to hunt (and gave me my first shotgun) when I was eight. I've been hunting ever since, and yes, killing animals is fun.

    But, I'm a Neanderthal.

  • 28 - Christopher Rose

    Apr 26, 2007 at 11:30 am

    Oh look, Nailius Americanus Neanderthalus. Bang, Bang!! Great fun...

  • 29 - Clavos

    Apr 26, 2007 at 11:41 am

    A compliment, coming from Sensitivus Britannicus Pseudohispanicus Mongreli.

  • 30 - Christopher Rose

    Apr 26, 2007 at 11:52 am

    Laughius Maximus!

  • 31 - Clavos

    Apr 26, 2007 at 11:56 am

    I see you nailed (oops!) our Chinese author again this morning...

  • 32 - Dr Dreadful

    Apr 26, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    Well, this thread immediately went off-topic, with some mildly uncivilized bickering about what does or does not constitute an assault weapon, followed by a debate on Dave's right to shoot dangerous wildlife on his property, with a brief detour into the likelihood of Jesse getting filled with holes during a stroll through selected major US cities.

    Back to the main point of Jesse's argument, though, which doubts the gun lobby's primary justification for private ownership of non-hunting weapons (namely, self-defense and protection) and their citing of this to argue that the Virginia Tech tragedy might have been lessened or prevented if some of the folks on campus had been packing heat.

    You cannot absolutely predict how anyone will react in a situation of extreme stress. There are any number of instances of well-trained and disciplined soldiers who for whatever reason failed to perform in battle. Conversely, we've all read the news stories about 87-year-old grannies pulling shotguns on potential muggers and scaring them off.

    Even if a gun is drawn and fired, there's no guarantee that it will hit the right person - as witness the numerous 'friendly fire' incidents from Afghanistan and Iraq.

    It's perverse to accuse unarmed victims of cowardice, as some have done with regard to Virginia Tech. Oh, I'm sure a lot of the survivors don't feel great about themselves right now. So imagine how a soldier or a cop feels who didn't use their weapon at the crunch because they were too busy taking cover, or fired it but hit and killed a 'friendly'? How much more so for a civilian? All things considered, better for everyone's wellbeing if we're not all waving guns around, I think.

  • 33 - zingzing

    Apr 26, 2007 at 1:24 pm

    ok, dave can shoot animals with a rifle in the country. fine. i don't care. i don't live in the country, i live in the city, with lots of other people and very few animals. other than dogs, i rarely see anything larger than a mutated squirrel.

    if you live in a place with more cattle than humans, have all the guns you want. i'll just throw animal shit at you.

    i just don't see the point in having a gun in the city.

    now dave, if you lived in a city, i'm sure you would have guns. there would be no animals. now why would you want a gun here? would that be because you are afraid of "dangerous animals" and those who don't fit into your "particular identity group?"

  • 34 - Dave Nalle

    Apr 26, 2007 at 2:48 pm

    The cougar and other species had and have the you and your neighbors problem. The really dangerous animals are the gun geeks who pollute the countryside with lead, pesticides, herbicides and any other 'cide that supposedly enhances country living.

    Well that's it, you've convinced me. I'm going to turn my land into a cougar refuge and use my wife, kids and dogs to feed them. What a bastard I was not to do it sooner.

    And BTW, in general guns no longer fire lead bullets for just the reasons you suggest, and I use only organics in my garden.

    Dave

  • 35 - Dave Nalle

    Apr 26, 2007 at 2:51 pm

    You just seem to like killing things, Dave. Dogs, snakes, whatever, just doesn't matter, right?

    Actually, I don't much like killing animals and wouldn''t do it unless they are an immediate threat. I'm not a big hunter. The only animals I ever killed hunting ware a couple of ducks and that was 30 years ago.

    Dave

  • 36 - Dave Nalle

    Apr 26, 2007 at 2:55 pm

    now dave, if you lived in a city, i'm sure you would have guns. there would be no animals. now why would you want a gun here? would that be because you are afraid of "dangerous animals" and those who don't fit into your "particular identity group?"

    When I lived in town some years ago, I owned only my target pistol and purely for practice at the range, tempting though it was to shoot the occasional cat-sized rat in the backyard. On reflection I think I should have had a shotgun then as well. There was a fair amount of crime in our neighborhood, but most of it was minor.

    As for defending home and property, it really only takes one home invasion to ruin your whole day. We've had neighbors who have been burglarized and in one case attacked and beaten by burglars. If having a gun or two means that I might be able to prevent that ordeal for my family, I'm fine with that.

    Dave

  • 37 - zingzing

    Apr 26, 2007 at 3:27 pm

    somehow, i and many, many other people have survived over the last 30 or so years without a gun. my family has never had a gun, and never have we needed one. i'm not scared because i don't have one. to me, a gun is a waste of money. also, i am a very easily swayed by my emotions during any confrontation (as you can probably tell,) and i am quite afraid that if i did have a gun, there would be several dead women and a few dead men in my past.

  • 38 - Dave Nalle

    Apr 26, 2007 at 3:47 pm

    Probably a good plan not to have a gun then, Zedd. Personally I'd rather have a gun and not need it than not have a gun and need it.

    Dave

  • 39 - Bill

    May 02, 2007 at 11:48 pm

    I live in a rural area where the reasonable response time for law enforcement is 30 minutes. The only thing the police can do in that situation is write the report and photograph the crime scene. I guess you live in a metropolitan area where there is always a police office very close. The truth is a firearm is simply a tool, be it a single shot rifle or a submachinegun it is only a collection of parts that has the potential for being used for good or evil. Look to Switzerland as an example and remember if cattle and chickens were armed we would all be vegetarians.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Nov 24, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for October

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs