Something else about this shit I just figured out with no help from the gun nuts, the people who are supposedly best-prepared and informed to talk about this shit with me

Considering the rule of responsible gun ownership that “you only draw your gun if you intend to fire it.”

The rule must be discussed this strictly otherwise it will lead to irresponsible gun usage. We discuss it this way because it is the safest way to mentally-prepare gun owners for the possibility of firing their gun and taking life. Whether or not real-life situations unfold otherwise, the hypothetical must be presented this way.

If you talk about it any other way, you are introducing doubt, doubt in the decision-making process, doubt that could lead to someone getting killed. A gun owner a) must fire their gun upon drawing it, and if they don’t, b) they can end up murdered or c) it is not truly life-or-death. Those are the three outcomes when we speak of this in the hypothetical. To state otherwise is dishonest, this is how you must talk about it or some gun-owner will remember what you said about how you don’t always have to fire the gun when you pull it and that’ll be the day that the criminal is a little quicker on the draw.

These fuckers can’t understand the gravity of what they’ve been trusted with. This is why I state that guns are killing manifest, and I didn’t know how to elucidate why ‘til now. Goddamn I feel like I’ve taken four levels in Gun Understanding over the course of the night (I also hit the level cap to choose my next class, it’s been a busy twelve hours, but I’ll be writing about that soon. I really feel like I’m winding down now. Shitty sad role-playing game references notwithstanding).

If anyone wants to argue this, please re-state my argument first to prove you understand this point, because I honestly feel like it’s too abstract for the tumblr audience given how the discussion has progressed so far.

pitbulllady:

It is the same way in South Carolina.  You CAN present a weapon in order to scare off a threat, and 99% of the time, it works, and you do not need to fire a single shot.  Most criminals are cowards, and like animal predators, they look for the weakest, easiest prey, the ones least likely to harm THEM.  As soon as they realize that their intended victim is capable of not only hurting, but killing them, most will retreat rather than risk injury or death to themselves.  You are allowed in my state to meet force with equal or greater force, but once the threat is nullified, or the instigator backs down or retreats, you must also reduce your force.  In other words, you are not allowed to continue with force once your attacker backs away.  You are only allowed to use whatever force is needed to stop the attack on your or another person.  If you have a REASONABLE reason to believe that your life is in danger, you are allowed to use deadly force to stop the threat.  IF you do have to fire a shot, however, it is recommended to aim for the center of mass, in other words, shoot to KILL.  You cannot shoot a retreating attacker or one who has been incapacitated by other means, and modern ballistic investigations WILL prove the circumstances under which someone was shot.  That can make all the difference as to whether a defensive shooter has no charges filed against them, or whether they themselves will wind up with murder charges.

First off: when was the last time you had to draw a gun on someone in a life-or-death situation? If you’re alive or you haven’t killed anyone else, the answer is never. You may have been in a dangerous situation where you pulled your gun, and you demonstrated irresponsible gun ownership in that moment.

The moment you give an instigator to back down or retreat is the moment that they can kill you.

If you believe they are retreating, then the situation was never as life-or-death as you thought because the possibility of their retreat exists. It is “life-or-death,” not “life-or-death-or-wow-guess-i-lucked-out”

It would be so easy for you to say “hm yeah I guess that’s right” and nothing about your position on gun control or gun rights has to change. You’re just going “SHIT NO I DEMAND THAT THIS GUY WAS DOING THE RIGHT THING, WE GUN-PARTNERS GOTTA STICK TOGETHER (TO OUR GUNS LOL RIGHT GUYS? TOTAL LOL)” This doesn’t preclude that responsible gun ownership exists— why are you refusing to learn anything?

Is it because you’re scared? Scared of the power you hold? Scared that you may find yourself in a situation where you use your gun? Doesn’t seem worth owning a gun to me.

Don’t worry I won’t argue this further I’m just glad my thoughts made it to you.

progunmechanics:

fmchubs:

yeah, duh, the people who are paranoid enough to own guns are also paranoid enough to move far away from crime as they prioritize fear above most things in life

Queue in the millions of people who live in cities who can afford a $150 gun but can’t afford to move out…

Keep coming up with correlations and I’ll happily acknowledge one that’s actually got some causation involved

Do you know anything about statistics? The correlation is negative, but too low to prove anything.

i.e. apples to orange soda. It’s completely independent. New Orleans is violent and has a lot of legal guns, Chicago is just as violent and a lot less legal guns.

and don’t confuse a back-pat for a pistol whip or you might kill someone

Get help.

“QUEUE IN”

“LOT LESS LEGAL GUNS”

sorry man you gonna suggest I don’t know anything about statistics based on an abstract statement of mine, I’m down to suggest you don’t know a thing about writing and, in fact, may be illiterate, which really limits the possibility of this conversation

Also: I am getting help. Wish you could talk to my therapist about how copacetic a person she believes I am (whether or not she’s lying is besides the point, you’re the one who suggested help and I’m here to tell you it’s going so well) and how the reasons I’m speaking with her are utterly unrelated to how I’m functioning on tumblr outside of my current manic attention on this topic. Meanwhile, how’s it going over there in the morass of gun-worship? Learned anything lately? Seen any new pretty pictures?

You are frightened of yourself and people. Don’t get help because the idea of you gaining the tools to effectively convey your feelings might help you climb out of the hole that you seem happy to remain in, and I, as said before, cannot think of a better (peaceful!) torture.

tehgore:

As long as there are people, there will be those who want to use violence against others. As long as there are governments and nations, there will be war, and genocide. Violence and murder are, unfortunately, part of human nature. Keeping weapons, and a fair rule of law helps keep those kinds of people in check.

look at this sad frightened child

“we’re animals, might as well engage in some mutually-assured destruction” *fires every gun into the air, a rain of bullets drowns us and there is no Noah*

YOU TALK ABOUT FREEDOM AND YET YOU ARE A SLAVE TO VIOLENCE

elpatron56:

image

image

image

Hm, can it be? No matter who plots the data the correlation always seems low, whether it is for homicides in general or gun homicides.

Shall we reduce the number of nations? Leave only the so called “developed” ones?

image

Almost the same correlation.

oh damn oh damn I feel the epiphany, i feel it all, yall. see the problem was i never gave the time of day to these arguments but I finally looked at these stats that in the back of my head I knew meant nothing but didn’t want to dig into and figure out why they meant nothing. all my talk about acknowledging one’s fear and abstract thought would really come in handy for these fuckers

I took a moment to explore why something so counter to what I know is true would seem to be factual, and after a bit of thinking and not rushing to counter an argument, I arrived: yeah, duh, the people who are paranoid enough to own guns are also paranoid enough to move far away from crime as they prioritize fear above most things in life. Montana has a small population of conservatives who likely own lots of guns. And no scared craven child is gonna own just one gun, nah, they need an arsenal to polish waiting for the coyotes to attack the sheep or the Bradleys to storm the compound, dying of old age before getting the chance to wing an intruder because they’re in the middle of fucking nowhere and nobody cares about them. Meanwhile a place like NYC has tons more people, less guns thanks to gun control, a dense, stressed-out population, a full socio-economic spectrum breeding envy, materialistic/commercial culture on a grand scale, and acts as a hub for organized crime based on location. Naturally: places with more guns have less violent crime because there would be less crime otherwise.

Keep coming up with correlations and I’ll happily acknowledge one that’s actually got some causation involved. But actually I don’t think there is one so it’s probably best to just lay down your arms and try not being spooked for once since you can’t prove anything and guns are a net loss for people where peace is a net gain. NICE

It’s so cool because I hadn’t even thought of this shit before. Just by removing myself from the debate, I’m able to work on what actually matters, which is developing my own line of thought.

what u up to elpatron56? copying-and-pasting these graphs everywhere and enjoying the congratulatory slaps on the back? Don’t answer that or any of this cause it’s gonna fall on deaf, unenlightened, falsely-transcendent ears (mine). oh and don’t confuse a back-pat for a pistol whip or you might kill someone

progunmechanics:

some words

lol you argued that i ignored context yet you clearly haven’t read my tumblr and by a quick scan of the first few pages of yours, it’s clear that you don’t give a fuck about moving past gunlust. but hey your interpretation of those rules was interesting and i’ll def do more research. i also liked your Bushido sword-tasting-blood analogy, it sincerely summed up how i see responsible gun ownership but both of us are ultimately colliding anecdotes

double lol at the snark about sex— sex is creepier than violence to you, dude

while i’ve got your attention: you govern your life by fear. you’re a coward who cannot accept death. otherwise why do you own a gun? (that’s rhetorical, you’re out of your element, sorry to condescend but idgaf anymore, this is more fun)

Some lady’s response to the news story that two people were shot tonight in Clearwater, FL.

I checked my D&D Monster Manual and I can’t find the entry for Irony Elemental. Maybe they forgot it? Or maybe not including it was the point. Either way, I found one in the wild! no longer a myth

Look at all the notes on this gif. Even if everyone included both reblogged and liked this post, that’s, bare minimum, 35,000+ people in support of irresponsible gun ownership. 35,000+ who claim they deserve a right that they can’t even practice correctly. Don’t understand? Take it from some people who actually give a shit about their actions and the consequences.

You don’t draw your gun to scare someone off, you don’t draw the gun and shoot to ‘wound’ someone either. If you’re taking out your gun it’s because you need to use it that instant because if you don’t you might end up a dead man.”

“The simple fact is that, if you draw your weapon to scare or wound, then you don’t need to be drawing your weapon; or, if you draw your weapon, it should only be to pull the trigger and put three rounds into the bad guy. End of story. If you carry a weapon and think that you can use it to scare a bad guy away or wound them but not kill them, you are, in my opinion, fooling yourself and it will most likely get you or someone you care about hurt or killed.

“If you are going to carry a concealed weapon, you need to be rigorous about safe, competent gun handling. Your heater is always loaded – or it better be. That means you must never ever, under any circumstance, draw it while carrying unless you’re truly in a life or death situation.
You do not pull it out to show to your buddies. You never cover anyone with the muzzle.

Wow, this one feels real good: even the type of people who contribute to Yahoo! Questions know more about this shit than you 35,000+.

Also, never draw a weapon unless you’re prepared to use it. You can draw hoping to scare someone off only to have them pull their own gun out or rush you, and then that momentary hesitation before seeing the change in threat and firing will get you killed”

(All underlines are links also selected for emphasis.)

35,000+ people who love guns and know less about guns than I do. You never draw your gun to scare off, you do not aim to wound, you draw your gun to kill. It is meant to kill. It is a tool for killing. It is killing manifest. This isn’t my interpretation, it’s the law’s interpretation, the law that you so furiously defend.

If you can’t comprehend that the “right,” “morally just,” “appropriate,” “legal” action for this shopkeep was to blast the robber in his face, scattering grey matter and teeth and essence across the linoleum until he stopped twitching, how dare you speak to the idea of responsible gun ownership? And what the fuck do you think you know about peace and justice?

I’ll even slip you the answer: nothing. You simply love guns and know nothing about them like a dog loves chasing squirrels because you love violence & power and masturbate to a Desert Eagle idol.

risingfalling:

My addiction to violence. Nice assumption there, buddy. 

And also a very nice way to leave a conversation by trying to claim what I say is false. My simple sentence is unfortunately very true.

Your poetic rant about Ghandi, doves, being special, and pizza also makes you seem intelligent, but until you explain what your super secret is, you’re just ranting lunatic who believes in fairy tale endings.

And don’t think for one second that you’re the only person that has ever “given thought to peace.” All of us have. However, many of us are grounded in reality. I would also never give up my humanity and freedom for some false, forced, oppressive peace. A conflict that ends in freedoms and rights taken a way is not a resolution.

In a peaceful world where murder is impossible, firearms would still serve as a nice form of recreation. 

If you insist on the right to own a gun, you insist for a tool of death for a living world in which that is antithetical. You are addicted to violence in that you cannot fathom a world without it.

Your sentence is true for an argument I was never having. Maybe. I shouldn’t deem it true because I’m not gonna undertake the logic puzzle of arguing it, especially with someone who saw what I wrote and said to themselves “but wait guns make us equal” rather than something disagreeable but appropriate like “but violence is an inherent quality to humanity.” Sorry to leave you hanging on that one.

The whole point of creating the litmus test is that it serves as a way to distinguish the people who are capable of talking about this shit, and if you see the peace Gandhi believed in & what I’m attempting to convey as “false, forced, oppressive,” or you think I am trying to strip you of rights rather than convince you that you only think you need them because of your own deep-set fear of humanity, you didn’t pass. You do not understand the principle of non-violent resistance and that it demands free decision, sometimes the only decision possible, by its agents.

And, you, too, are not reading what I’m writing: I didn’t say I was the only person who thought about peace, I even said I’m not special. I did distinguish myself from the “hawks and doves,” a classic phrase meant to conjure up distinct sides in a battle that I’m not participating in and you don’t have to either. You referring to it my mention of doves as poetic suggests that you’re unaware of that meaning, which doesn’t look fondly upon the potential of our discussion.

Possibly the fifth time I’ve written this, even in advance of people saying it because I expected the argument as I, too, have found pleasure in firing an AK at some beer cans: in a peaceful world where murder is possible but we choose not to employ it, guns cannot serve a recreational purpose as their original purpose ceases to be. They become an outdated symbol of a history we’ve abandoned. People still practice swordplay and archery because of that same addiction to violence— we don’t even use them for their intended purpose, we just love playing at it, pretending that the skills we foster can be used for anything but killing when other talents like tennis or juggling exist.

Watch that link at the end of my last post, it’s all you need to know in about ninety seconds. Everything we do is a choice between fear and love and you have the freedom to decide which side you stake your claim in every moment of every day.

And look at me go, I can’t tell if I’m continuing this conversation because I’m afraid of looking like a lunatic or if I love you as a human being too much to let it drop. perhaps the true fucker has been inside me all along

risingfalling:

elpatron56:

fmchubs:

Okay, now we’re getting somewhere: you’re afraid of the police.

No. The police is afraid of something, if they need guns so do I.

Why? Is it because they have guns? We’re on the same page: the police shouldn’t have guns. It’s something I’ve said for years and is even part of a…

I call bullshit on people being equals without firearms. Without firearms, people of weaker physical build, such as a small person like me would not be able to defend ourselves effectively against bigger, stronger people.

Firearms are an equalizer. A bullet fired from my small hands is just as effective at stopping a criminal as a bullet fired from a physically strong law enforcement officer. 

Fuck this shit. This is killing me. The internet is killing me, I’ve barely slept over the past two days, haven’t eaten anything in almost 24 hours. I wrote a whole paragraph about seeing the forest for the trees and I’ve written over and over that I don’t care about gun control and anyone who engages with me is still so insistent about getting little jabs in, picking and choosing the shit they think they’ve got new, fresh thought on, the key to winning the battle, “calling bullshit,” all because you absolutely refuse to acknowledge your own addiction to violence. “Maybe if I look at it this way we’ll still get to kill each other but a few less preschools will end up massacred.” “Only pious, healthy people get guns, not the bad guys, then we’re safe.”

Here’s the litmus test: agree with him or not, if you can understand why Gandhi would suggest that the Jews non-violently submit to death in the face of the Nazi regime, I’ll put my emotional well-being at risk to talk to you tumblrites. If your understanding of that concept goes beyond “but then the Nazis would just kill everyone and we’d all be dead and living in Nazi world” and you can picture the timeline of non-violent resolution to the war from that point on, then you’re thinking from the same sort of perspective I am.

But I’m not giving away the secret. That’s my defense. That’s how I’m going to separate the thinkers from the repeaters. The answer ain’t on Wikipedia. Nobody ever taught it to me and I’ve never heard anyone come up with it independently. I’m not special, but I’ve given thought to peace, more than the screeching lip-service of the doves and the hawks caught in the same two-sided mentality we’ve suffered since humans existed.

You’re so desperate to establish yourself as correct and there were never any answers other than living happily and in peace. I’m gonna eat a pizza and play some videogames, fuckers.