I bought a gun to prepare for WW3

[Guest ratchethack]

Ya know, its all this controversy over the ugly side of guns that has caused me to lose just about all interest in them. . . . .

 

. . . . I grew up with Boys Life Magazine and its ads by Marlin and Savage for 22s and small shotguns. Every ad had a kindly father or adult shown with the young boy showing him the ropes of shooting. My dad made sure I attended a firearms safety course and my next door(ranch) neighbor taught me respect for the potential danger of guns before I ever got to touch one. I still look at guns in my mind from that perspective and I abhor the thought of ever having to point one at a human being, let alone game of any sort. Never was much of a hunter.

Interesting post, Dhansen. I b'lieve I've explored this "controversy" and "ugly side of of guns" that you refer to in some depth.

 

All of the experiences you mentioned above were part of the way I was raised also. I was responsibly instructed as a kid of 12 and certified in a 3-stage marksmanship course, and took a few other advanced shooting courses on top of this. Again like you, since my first sight of guns belonging to my Dad and Granddad, I've always possessed an abiding respect for their capabilities - and for their safe handling and storage. I've raised my son the same way. We both handle weapons responsibly, safely, and take some pride in doing respectably well at the range. My son's a better marksman than I was at his age, but he still can't take the ol' man. . . .

 

I reckon I've carried lots of different guns into the field and have punched paper at many dozens of shooting ranges, both indoor and outdoor, and have a few shooting Pals who also enjoy going to the range on a semi-regular basis. Though I've done some hunting with my Dad and Granddad, I never got close enough to a deer, rabbit, duck or pheasant to get off a shot, though guys in the hunting parties I've been a part of did, and I was priveleged enough to experience how life-long experienced hunters behave in the field up-close and personal many times at an early age.

 

Never in my life have I seen any person with a gun with some kind of sick fascination for "blowing things up" or killing animals (let alone humans) for the "thrill of killing", though I have little doubt that they exist. I've seen rangemasters correct the behavior of shooters a few times, but I've never been around anyone who would act irresponsibly with a weapon and I take measures to ensure that any probability of this is negligible or none.

 

Venison and pheasant on the dinner table, like brown and brook trout, were all equally highly celebrated occasions in my family that I'm blessed enough to still appreciate today. . . . There are those who will tell you that hunting is the same as murder and IS a sick fascination and other nonsense, but these people are in the tiniest of minorities, they typically know nothing whatsoever about what they're talking about, and tend to parrot their favorite propaganda sources without analysis or any connection with reality.

 

In my opinion, the "ugly side of guns" is a deluded image that has been manufactured entirely by propaganda, Popular Kulture, the mainstream media, and Hollywood. When you think about it, nothing like "controversy", let alone "The ugly side of guns" existed before they did, though firearms literally preceded them by centuries. I haven't let the delusions of Popular Kulture destroy my appreciation for the shooting sports and I doubt it'll ever destroy my son's appreciation either.

 

No, I've never pointed a weapon at a person and I've never looked forward to the possibility. But yes, I'm fully prepared should the need arise, and both myself and my son have the kind of confidence around weapons that comes from having been well-trained to understand defensive handling of guns and to act legally and responsibly at all times. As I mentioned before, I believe that being armed responsibly is the very best insurance against criminal attack, and better than this cannot be had at any price -- further, that the constitutionally protected RIGHT to do so, as it still is in the US, is nothing short of the foundation upon which truly civilized, free people live. As the world history of the last century so clearly demonstrated, when this RIGHT is removed, sooner or later the rest of all remaining freedoms follow.

 

Groupthink and propaganda are insidious and pervasive. It's as dangerous today as it ever was. Why let the misconceptions of others detract in any way from the way you want to live?

For me though, its not worth the grief.

For me, freedom's worth any measure of grief and sacrifice it takes to secure and maintain it.

[dlaing]

And perhpas some take their politics too seriously.

Give it a break already.

I often feel that when people tell me to shut up, they are censoring me.

But that is their right, and your right to tell me to give it a break, but not the right of government.

It kind of ends up in mop rule with the most vocal "winning" the argument.

You see, I have said that to people from both sides of the spectrum.

I now realize they were both dead wrong, and of course,

only my viewpoint is the correct one.

Now your talking!

Now if you adopt my viewpoint, you will have my greatest respect!

I have tried to find common ground with folks on this forum, but the bridge ends never seem to meet.

My more leftward friends probably think I am an evil right-winger for thinking guns, hot rods, trucks, titty threads, and dirt and sport bikes are cool.

And then the majority of this forum doesn't take kindly to my ideas of higher fossil fuel taxes (in USA), and belief that there are too many dumb asses with guns(in USA).

Maybe we really do need Ratchet to start a manly man camp, if only to learn how to shoot guns and get drunk responsibly.

[dhansen]

Interesting post, Dhansen. I b'lieve I've explored this "ugly side of of guns" that you refer to in some depth.

 

In my opinion, the "ugly side of guns" is a deluded image that has been manufactured entirely by propaganda, Popular Kulture, the mainstream media, and Hollywood. When you think about it, it didn't exist in anything like it's present form before they did. I haven't let it destroy my appreciation for the shooting sports and I doubt it'll destroy my son's appreciation either.

 

Groupthink and propaganda are insidious and pervasive. It's as dangerous today as it ever was. But why let misconceptions of others detract in any way from the way you want to live?

 

There are only a handful of regrets that I carry after leaving San Diego for Maine and every once and awhile I have to add a new one. Not living closer to a couple of the guys on this list that I've come to know is one more. Ratchethack, you're one of them. Not that I agree with everything you bring up.................. But hey, thats what life is all about.

 

I couldn't agree more with you though about the deluded image that has been foisted on the shooting sports. You nailed it!

 

As for my reaction to the ugly side of guns and citing that as my reason for losing interest in them, well, that was only a part of the story. At about that same time several other events took place that added to the fact. A new job stole much of my time, my best friend and rabid shooting enthusiast (with his own private range) moved to Alaska, the most active local range and gun shop closed and I got back into motorcycles.

 

The gun thing is still out there and who knows, one of these days I may wake up with an uncontrollable urge to go buy a high grade Ruger #1 in 458 Winmag. (I love single shots) or maybe another shotgun of some sort to slay some clay pidgeons. For now though I'm directing what little free time and funds I have to get my other (late) friends '00 V11 back on the road.

 

........and speaking of V11s........... I'm still waiting to get legal title so I can register it. I've been adding Techtron to the fuel and sneaking it out once a week or so just to keep things going. The Techtron seems to be helping. It is definately running better and I'm hopeful that once I can take it out for more than a two or three minute sorte it will completely clean out. I've gotten a pair of new replacement levers from the chap in the UK, Giovonni, who is selling stuff on ebay. The price was right (although I see he has upped it on more recent listings) the levers look nice and fit as good as OEM. I've also gotten a pair of Buell turn signals to replace the broken ones up front. (Buell #'s YO526.K and YO527.K) They are not an exact match and will require drilling out the signal extender on the bike to accept the threaded shaft and coming up with some sort of skinny nut to hold them on. The lights also have locating pins that will need to be removed or as I think I will do, make up a small "adapter plate" to fit between the light and the extender. Once they are on they will look great......... an exact match in that respect. Cost for the two signals was about $28.00 with tax.

 

One last thought on the gun issue. I wish I were better able to articulate my feelings about the right to own guns but this writing thing doesn't come easily to me. Others are far better than I. However, I do VOTE in every election.

[Frenchbob]

Maybe we really do need Ratchet to start a manly man camp, if only to learn how to shoot guns and get drunk responsibly.

 

Teach us how to get guns responsibly and shoot drunks - we might be interested. Over to Hatchet...........

[dlaing]

Can we have loose women who appreciate guns, cigars and booze?

No cry baby whiners, doll coddlers, or nags???

[docc]

eh, I'll let Dr.Docc chime in, if he is indeed hurt by anything I'll remove the misconstrewed comments myself.

 

ppl need to go ridding more and typing less, I'm done with the banter forum. egh.

 

 

Naw, I'm all finished sobbing now. S'pose you'll have to call me 'ducc' to cover the quacking thing. Like so many of the complex issues of life (doctors, guns, motorcycles) if we draw our conclusions on the most visible, the average, or the hype we are likely to miss the truth , and with it, much of the experience of life.

 

Per Martin's post:

 

" . . . incapacitant sprays (CS and now pepper) that are "firearms" under UK law . . ."

 

Pepper spray is a "firearm?" Careful Martin, before long they'll have you on a scooter and call it a "Motorcycle." The slippery slope and all . . .

[mike wilson]

Is this a "drive-by?" If you'd like to provide some evidence of what you claim, I'll take a run at it. The fact is that this is utter nonsense. In countries such as the UK and Australia, crime rates have escalated following gun control, and yes, I can prove it. You show me yours and I'll show you mine. I caution you that this always comes down to credibility of sources.

 

Stupid laws are stupid laws, although location has a great bearing on what is stupid, where. Banning personal protection firearms would be stupid in the USA, as there are so many a significant proportion would immediately go underground. Banning handguns (only used for target shooting) in the UK because one lunatic took his weaponry and executed a class of infants was equally stupid. That was a failing of that particular instance of the firearm licencing system.

 

The fact that gun crime apparently rose after the ban is meaningless - it was rising before. Even so, it is at a very low level. Virtually nobody in the UK has carried concealed (or otherwise) firearms since before the first world war. There has been no significant rise in gun crime here associated with that, nor have there been any (government or otherwise) pogroms that I am aware of.

 

The rise in gun crime in the UK can be correlated to the influx of criminals from areas where firearms are more easily available and carried normally by criminals. Control those people and you pretty much control gun crime. Seems to be working, here. I suspect my chances of getting shot are in the same order as being hit by a meteorite or winning the lottery.

 

Whilst I (think I) understand your desire to protect yourself as best you can, I find your contempt for anyone who suggests that there is an altenative puzzling. Sure, it will be a long and rocky road - it will definitely need to be an international effort (maybe that is your difficulty?) - but, as a long term aim, it seems to me that a God-fearing democrat would want a society where disputes can be settled without violence?

 

Two more things:

 

None of the above should be taken to mean that I dislike guns. Having fired many things between a Brown Bess and a Barrett, I do find them interesting and enjoy exercising my skill.

 

In the National Museum of Russia, in Moscow, there is a 16th Century, percussion cap, six shot revolver rifle. Is this as much of an anachronism as I think?

 

m

[Guest ratchethack]

The fact that gun crime apparently rose after the ban is meaningless - it was rising before. Even so, it is at a very low level. Virtually nobody in the UK has carried concealed (or otherwise) firearms since before the first world war. There has been no significant rise in gun crime here associated with that, nor have there been any (government or otherwise) pogroms that I am aware of.

Mike, thank you for your reply. I hope you'll consider a well-informed respose.

 

Your observations are at odds with the record, sir -- even with that of the BBC. If I may suggest an excellent book written following the completion of a number of the most comprehensive and conclusive long-term studies to date on the effects of gun control and their measured results, it is by John R. Lott, Jr., entitled More Guns, Less Crime. I read my copy 6 years ago. It is THE definitive work on the subject and is referred to constantly as a summary of the most highly corroborated hard evidence behind the proof suggested in its title. This book is referred to in many of the short common-sense articles on the subject by one of my favorite authors, Thomas Sowell, one of which I've copied below.

Whilst I (think I) understand your desire to protect yourself as best you can, I find your contempt for anyone who suggests that there is an altenative puzzling. Sure, it will be a long and rocky road - it will definitely need to be an international effort (maybe that is your difficulty?)

Mike, while your suggestion that "there is an alternative" is common, I've developed a well-worn contempt for the equally common habit of those who make this suggestion, who invariably offer no hints about what this "alternative" might be!! What is it, and where is the record of results demonstrated by this mysterious, unnamed, unexplained, and presumably unproven "alternative"? Your second idea that some "international effort" can "do something" would seem to fall in this same category.

 

Are you proposing that some International body such as the UN collect all guns from law-abiding Citizens of all Nations? If you are, this idea certainly has a great deal of political backing all around the planet, especially at the UN. However, there is no historical evidence whatsoever that this would improve crime rates. In fact, the evidence documented by Lott's widely known compilation of the most significant recent studies, including those in England and Australia, more than suggests exactly the opposite.

. . . . as a long term aim, it seems to me that a God-fearing democrat would want a society where disputes can be settled without violence?

Mike, I don't think you'd find many God-fearing democrats who would not WANT a society where disputes would always be settled without violence, myself included. May we please separate desires, wishful thinking, and dreams of a non-existant utopia from what is known and proven to be effective, as has been demonstrated so clearly, resoundingly, and repeatedly throughout history? If I seem contemptuous of those who oppose common sense on this topic, it's because I get weary of those who have such little regard for reality that they support goals based on "what they want, what could be, what should be, etc...." with utter disregard for what IS, and the lessons of history -- particularly modern history, right up to today.

 

If I may suggest another favorite book, Vision of the Anointed by Thomas Sowell, the author of the article below. This is a superb, well-sourced and well written study on the devastation wrought by the mentality of disconnected and uneducated wishful thinking so deftly manipulated and exploited by politicians and propagandists.

 

Gun Control Myths: Gun Restrictions and Murder Rates

by Thomas Sowell (November 27, 2002)

NOTE: See thumbnail bio of the author below and curriculum vitae at enclosed link

 

Talking facts to gun control zealots is only likely to make them angry. But the rest of us need to know what the facts are. More than that, we need to know that much of what the gun controllers claim as facts will not stand up under scrutiny.

 

The grand dogma of the gun controllers is that places with severe restrictions on the ownership of firearms have lower rates of murder and other gun crimes. How do they prove this? Simple. They make comparisons of places where this is true and ignore all comparisons of places where the opposite is true.

 

Gun control zealots compare the United States and England to show that murder rates are lower where restrictions on ownership of firearms are more severe. But you could just as easily compare Switzerland and Germany, the Swiss having lower murder rates than the Germans, even though gun ownership is three times higher in Switzerland. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand and Finland.

 

Within the United States, rural areas have higher rates of gun ownership and lower rates of murder, whites have higher rates of gun ownership than blacks and much lower murder rates. For the country as a whole, handgun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down. But such facts are not mentioned by gun control zealots or by the liberal media.

 

Another dogma among gun control supporters is that having a gun in the home for self-defense is futile and is only likely to increase the chances of your getting hurt or killed. Your best bet is to offer no resistance to an intruder, according to this dogma.

 

Actual research tells just the opposite story. People who have not resisted have gotten hurt twice as often as people who resisted with a firearm. Those who resisted without a firearm of course got hurt the most often.

 

Such facts are simply ignored by gun control zealots. They prefer to cite a study published some years ago in the New England Journal of Medicine and demolished by a number of scholars since then. According to this discredited study, people with guns in their homes were more likely to be murdered.

 

How did they arrive at this conclusion? By taking people who were murdered in their homes, finding out how many had guns in the house, and then comparing them with people who were not murdered in their homes.

 

Using similar reasoning, you might be able to show that people who hire bodyguards are more likely to get killed than people who don't. Obviously, people who hire bodyguards already feel at risk, but does that mean that the bodyguards are the reason for the risk?

 

Similarly illogical reasoning has been used by counting how many intruders were killed by homeowners with guns and comparing that with the number of family members killed with those guns. But this is a nonsense comparison because most people who keep guns in their homes do not do so in hopes of killing intruders.

 

Most uses of guns in self-defense -- whether in the home or elsewhere -- do not involve actually pulling the trigger. When the intended victim turns out to have a gun in his hand, the attacker usually has enough brains to back off. But the lives saved this way do not get counted.

 

People killed at home by family members are highly atypical. The great majority of these victims have had to call the police to their homes before, because of domestic violence, and just over half have had the cops out several times. These are not just ordinary people who happened to lose their temper when a gun was at hand.

 

Neither are most "children" who are killed by guns just toddlers who happened to find a loaded weapon lying around. More of those "children" are members of teenage criminal gangs who kill each other deliberately.

 

Some small children do in fact get accidentally killed by guns in the home -- but fewer than drown in bathtubs. Is anyone for banning bathtubs? Moreover, the number of fatal gun accidents fell, over the years, while the number of guns was increasing by tens of millions. None of this supports the assumption that more guns mean more fatal accidents.

 

Most of the gun controllers' arguments are a house of cards.

 

No wonder they don't want any hard facts coming near them.

 

__________

 

Thomas Sowell has published a large volume of writing. His dozen books, as well as numerous articles and essays, cover a wide range of topics, from classic economic theory to judicial activism, from civil rights to choosing the right college.

 

Curriculum vitae: http://www.tsowell.com/cv.html

[dlaing]

Mike, I don't think you'd find many God-fearing democrats who would not WANT a society where disputes can be settled without violence, myself included.

All those negatives are confusing me

You are a God-fearing democrat! Wow!

Which God?

Why do you fear your God?

Which democrats do you like the position of?

Did you write "democrats" rather than "Democrats" because you are and advocate of democracy and not necessarilly of the Democratic party?

 

 

 

 

If I seem contemptuous of those who oppose common sense on this topic, it's because I get weary of people who have such little regard for reality that they want to support goals based on "what they want, what could be, what should be, etc...." with utter disregard for what IS, and the lessons of history -- particularly modern history up to today.

Are you sure you are not the one with disregard for "what they want, what could be, what should be, etc...."

[TX REDNECK (R.I.P.)]

This guy can shoot

[Guest ratchethack]

This guy can shoot

OUTSTANDING! A modern-era Vassiliy Grigoryevich Zaitsev!

 

Carry on!

 

Cdr. Hatchracket, Road Geez Patrol

[Guest ratchethack]

Anthro, there may be some language use difficulties here, I don't know.

 

We can admire and revere any outanding target marksman who demonstrates uncommon ability.

 

We can also appreciate the admirable skill and stamina of the military sniper doing his job in a time of war to an exceptionally high level of expertise and productivity.

 

Though there are many similar skills involved, no one here is suggesting that killing people in war is any kind of a sport, let alone a "good" sport.

[Martin Barrett]

Anthro, there may be some language use difficulties here, I don't know.

 

We can admire and revere any outanding target marksman who demonstrates uncommon ability.

 

We can also appreciate the admirable skill and stamina of the military sniper doing his job in a time of war to an exceptionally high level of expertise and productivity.

 

Though there are many similar skills involved, no one here is suggesting that killing people in war is any kind of a sport, let alone a "good" sport.

 

I think the soldier may be making that connection also as indicating will leave the marines when his tour is up and not extend. Although indicating wants to move to a SWAT team.

[Guzzirider]

I was watching the documentary on Discovery where Jesse James goes over to Iraq to tune up a Hummer and I could not believe how little the American soldiers get paid to put their lives on the line, in comparison to the British soldiers.

 

Things have changed since WW2 when the Yanks could charm British ladies with cigarettes, silk and chocolate which your average British squaddie could not afford.

 

Guy

[DeBenGuzzi]

I know if they paid better I would have joined the military, but I've only heard shady things that no matter what you want to do unless you have, and sometimes even if you do have a contract you do what they want you to do. So the miniscule pay mixed with possible ditch diggin instead of helicopter flying I didn't go for it.