Firearms and other Weapons

[Marcus]

I think that this thread should be about the specific discussion of "Firearms and other Weapons" from a mainly technical + use perspective.

I also think that the philosophical + social + cultural aspects of gun ownership or not belongs in another separate thread.

Would like to hear the views of the contributors on splitting off such posts to a separate philosophy thread.

Doesn't much bother me either way though I don't know how one would separate the two since why one does it defines what one uses . . or something like that.

[Demon of Undoing]

I agree with Marcus in an understanding that, especially with weapons, the philosophy is hard to separate from the tools. I also get that some may be more likely to get into the technical and historic aspect when it is divorced from the messier parts of the subject. This element really is the subject. However, I'm not going to require a guy that appreciates a Martini-Henry because of the movie "Zulu" to be steeped in warrior zen bullshit.

Not sure how it would be parsed, but I'm okay with a " martial philosophy and practice" thread.

[Enki]

I have no passionate feelings about it either way. I just made an off the cuff remark and people responded. I don't care where that conversation goes.

[cdgt]

Time spent doing anything with the kids is priceless. But I wasn't the one who brought up the original comparison of the price of video games to the price of guns. Lots of studies coming out about the benefits of video games on cognition, but I won't hijack the thread to talk about those.

Fair enough.

In either case, for most people both are an impractical hobby that serves no real productive purpose.

I suppose that depends on how you define "most people." Most people who own guns and most people who own video games would probably argue that point. Personally, I fit in the former and not the latter. I think guns serve a real productive purpose and video games none. But that is to be expected, I guess.

The video game might not be worth much on resale, but neither is a rifle with a tired barrel.

Unless you are shooting an overbore centerfire or shooting so much that the cost of ammo dwarfs the cost of the gun or a new barrel, you simpy aren't going to have a tired barrel. A .30-30, .308, .30-06, shot once or twice a year to make sure the sights are on, then hunted, anually, is going to last generations with reasonable cleaning and upkeep.

And I was more comparing the video games to the ammunition, which is worth the value of its weight in copper after you've fired it. If you're buying ammunition for its value as a commodity that's a different thing entirely.

OK. There is value in building skill and relationships. It takes a lot of mental discipline to shoot a gun well, knowing that it is going to make a loud noise and potentially slam your shoulder or hand. Its an exercise in self control. After the ammo is expended, some value remains.

[Enki]

There are plenty of tangental benefits to playing video games as well.

[cdgt]

I agree with Marcus. Guns are tools, and why you want them and what you want to do with them makes all the difference in determining appropriate technical + use.

"Would you shoot a burgler stealing your tv?", is a worthwhile thing to discuss and contemplate. Especially for someone who may not have thought through the implications of owning and using a gun for home defense. A more technical (albeit idiotic, in my opinion) question might be, "What gun / ammo combination would be best for shooting a burgler stealing my tv?" But that more technical question is fraught with moral, legal and philosophical angles.

Anything can be taken to an extreme, but I'm not sure the philosophical and technical elements are wholly separable. My 2 cents.

[Enki]

I agree with Marcus. Guns are tools, and why you want them and what you want to do with them makes all the difference in determining appropriate technical + use.

"Would you shoot a burgler stealing your tv?", is a worthwhile thing to discuss and contemplate. Especially for someone who may not have thought through the implications of owning and using a gun for home defense. A more technical (albeit idiotic, in my opinion) question might be, "What gun / ammo combination would be best for shooting a burgler stealing my tv?" But that more technical question is fraught with moral, legal and philosophical angles.

Anything can be taken to an extreme, but I'm not sure the philosophical and technical elements are wholly separable. My 2 cents.

I don't think that the vast majority of gun owners are that philosophical about it. A lot of people I knew growing up just had guns. They didn't hunt, they thought they'd shoot a burglar, but in all likelihood they wouldn't be able to get the gun out of the safe before the burglar said, "Oh lavender.", and bolted.

[Demon of Undoing]

In America, there are gun owners, shooters, and users. A real distinction exists.

[Ibrahim]

In either case, for most people both are an impractical hobby that serves no real productive purpose.

I suppose that depends on how you define "most people." Most people who own guns and most people who own video games would probably argue that point. Personally, I fit in the former and not the latter. I think guns serve a real productive purpose and video games none. But that is to be expected, I guess.

Tinker is saying what I was saying, but focusing more on the cost element. Owning guns for personal defense is preparing for an incredibly unlikely eventuality. The number of actual subsistence hunters or people who legitimately need to defend themselves from natural predators is incredibly small. All other gun ownership is of a recreational/hobby nature. Hunters and sport shooters, enthusiasts and collectors.

I don't have a problem with that. It's the same as being into cars. I have friends who drive extravagant cars with capabilities that they will not use during their daily commute, but they admire a finely engineered automobile.

[Mr. Perfect]

I have no problem keeping the thread as is, no changes.

But I am really not following what is currently being discussed, fwiw.

[Mr. Perfect]

"Would you shoot a burgler stealing your tv?", is a worthwhile thing to discuss and contemplate.

I agree.

Especially for someone who may not have thought through the implications of owning and using a gun for home defense.

Yes.

A more technical (albeit idiotic, in my opinion) question might be, "What gun / ammo combination would be best for shooting a burgler stealing my tv?" But that more technical question is fraught with moral, legal and philosophical angles.

Anything can be taken to an extreme, but I'm not sure the philosophical and technical elements are wholly separable. My 2 cents.

A good pair of cents.

[Mr. Perfect]

Well Ibrahim/Tinker appear to be injecting an old saw from gun controllers that you maybe don't "need" a gun, but in fairness they may have no such intention. What I can say is the anti-gun argument is largely driven by spectacle driven anecdotal arguments like Trayvon Martin, which if it ever gets to that level can be counterable by anecdotal rebuttals of innocent people who saved themselves from rape and murder by having a gun. So however you want to go about that doesn't matter to me.

My opinion of gun ownership is that it is freedom in itself, not only a tool to get freedom, and so the "needs" based justification arguments either way fall short for me. The gun, the right to own it, is freedom in itself and should be prized as such by those who value freedom. The argument that you don't "need" guns, therefore we should be able to restrict them is no different than people who don't vote because the vote of one person doesn't count. That is probably true but you vote on the principle of having the franchise before you really consider anything else. At least I do. So a big part of owning a pipe of a certain construction is based on the principle of being able to own the pipe.

Gun rights have done so well in the last few decades, the Clinton ban notwithstanding and some of the Obama shenanigans, and I expect it to continue. I think it is a big factor in the drop in crime over the last few decades. One man's opinion, but...

What will take to the ultimate level though is at some point, one of these shooting spree perps is going to be taken out by a CCW citizen, and that will be a great day indeed. A great day. I really think it is inevitable.

[Enki]

Well Ibrahim/Tinker appear to be injecting an old saw from gun controllers that you maybe don't "need" a gun, but in fairness they may have no such intention. What I can say is the anti-gun argument is largely driven by spectacle driven anecdotal arguments like Trayvon Martin, which if it ever gets to that level can be counterable by anecdotal rebuttals of innocent people who saved themselves from rape and murder by having a gun. So however you want to go about that doesn't matter to me.

I am pro-second amendment as I have said on numerous occasions. Not everything needs to be turned into an argument about whether or not the government can take your guns. I am just saying that in my observation, most people are not actually using guns as practical tools.

My opinion of gun ownership is that it is freedom in itself, not only a tool to get freedom, and so the "needs" based justification arguments either way fall short for me. The gun, the right to own it, is freedom in itself and should be prized as such by those who value freedom. The argument that you don't "need" guns, therefore we should be able to restrict them is no different than people who don't vote because the vote of one person doesn't count. That is probably true but you vote on the principle of having the franchise before you really consider anything else. At least I do. So a big part of owning a pipe of a certain construction is based on the principle of being able to own the pipe.

Don't think anyone is arguing for restriction here.

Gun rights have done so well in the last few decades, the Clinton ban notwithstanding and some of the Obama shenanigans, and I expect it to continue. I think it is a big factor in the drop in crime over the last few decades. One man's opinion, but...

I don't recall Obama trying to restrict gun ownership in any way. I think the prosperity of the end of the millenium is probably the only significant factor in the drop in crime. Maybe the 'broken windows' policing where they just round up every potential crook and put them in prison along with a whole bunch of harmless people as well, plays a role. I doubt that gun control or lack thereof has anything to do with it.

What will take to the ultimate level though is at some point, one of these shooting spree perps is going to be taken out by a CCW citizen, and that will be a great day indeed. A great day. I really think it is inevitable.

People keep saying this is what we need guns for, and yet none of the gun owners manage to drop the perp. There is a reality that in our society, even if people own guns they aren't strapped on a regular basis, and even if they are strapped they are not ready to drop another human being while being shot at.

[cdgt]

Part of what I was responding to was the "extremely expensive" hobby angle. I doesn't have to be, per my Wally World example. And if I had inherited my grandfather guns (which were, gasp, remarkably similar to my Wally World examples, a .30-30, 12ga and .22LR rifle) I would've had a basic core collection from him at zero cost. And none of them would've had worn-out barrels, though they had accounted for a fair amount of table-fare.

Shoot the snot out of the .22(s) for cheap practice, sight in the centerfire occasionally, hunt, and it is pretty darn cheap hobby.

Long range overbored centerfires? Yeah, it's expensive. Dump 30rd mag after 30rd mag from an AR or AK, yup. But neither of those are the bulk of Mr. Blue Collar gun owner. Although I concede the AR/AK dudes are more numerous than the long range shooters.

As to "practical tools," a gun that sits "unused" night after night next to the bed and gives its owner a more peaceful sleep is being used in a practical way. Not all predators are "natural."

[Demon of Undoing]

Actually, gun owners have shut down mass murderers before. Google Luke Woodham and the actions of the VP at the school. That's just off the top of my head from years ago. Generally, if there is an armed intervention , you won't hear of it. At best, it makes two column inches. After all, you'd most likely be writing a story about what didn't happen. Great read, that.

I have let the ijuts at work know that I understand that situational stress is at an all time ( for them) high. I feel their pain and understand the plight of the lower end of the socioeconomic structure. They are also aware that I'm armed if awake, and that my office has one way in, and that anybody trying a workplace shooting better be quick.

[Marcus]

Oh, wow . . what now? Private citizens don't need guns 'cause no one's yet taken out a mass-murderer with one?

Go away . . a gun is and can be a "practical tool" in far, far more ways than one.

"To ride shoot straight and speak the truth,
this is the ancient law of youth,
old times are past, old days are done,
but the law runs true my little son."

—Charles T. Davis

[Ibrahim]

Actually, gun owners have shut down mass murderers before. Google Luke Woodham and the actions of the VP at the school. That's just off the top of my head from years ago. Generally, if there is an armed intervention , you won't hear of it. At best, it makes two column inches. After all, you'd most likely be writing a story about what didn't happen. Great read, that.

I have let the ijuts at work know that I understand that situational stress is at an all time ( for them) high. I feel their pain and understand the plight of the lower end of the socioeconomic structure. They are also aware that I'm armed if awake, and that my office has one way in, and that anybody trying a workplace shooting better be quick.

In my view the potential usefulness of firearms in certain situations is obvious. If you need a gun, it's great to have one. But this is also true of fire extinguishers or first aid kits. My point about guns is that they are very seldom needed, and an individual might rationally find more useful things to carry or spend money on.

To look at Tinker's cost question, consider a man with a family and a limited amount of disposable income. He buys guns and trains with them to be able to protect his family from violent criminals. This is reasonable in and of itself. But his family is much more likely (statistically speaking) to be maimed or killed in a car accident. Would it not make more sense to take the money he spent on guns, ammunition, and training and put racing safety seats in his car and buy his kids helmets? That is the greater threat, and why wouldn't he allocate money to protecting his family from the greater threat? I argue it is because he also enjoys guns, and aside from their functionality it is a hobby and an interest for him. The slim chance of using them for defense is a justification for that hobby.



And, as I've said before, guns for defense is also a gamble. You can own a gun, you can train with it until you are as good as you are going to get, but you may still not succeed in trying to shoot the man trying to shoot you first. I think cincinnatus made the same point earlier in the thread, but it's something that some gun enthusiasts seem to gloss over too often.

[Ibrahim]

To ride shoot straight and speak the truth,

Careful, the historical origin of that maxim is ancient Persia.

[Marcus]

To ride shoot straight and speak the truth,

Careful, the historical origin of that maxim is ancient Persia.

Reference, please . .

The only credit I could find is the one I cited.

As for, "he also enjoys guns, and aside from their functionality," the enjoyment derived is a part of their functionality.

[Ibrahim]

To ride shoot straight and speak the truth,

Careful, the historical origin of that maxim is ancient Persia.

Reference, please . .

The only credit I could find is the one I cited.

It's in Herodotus, and Graves mentions it several times in his Claudius novels, the original quote is attributed to Solon. Allegedly it was the basis of the education of a Persian noble warrior, or at least an ideal. Similar expressions exist among the steppe peoples.

As for, "he also enjoys guns, and aside from their functionality," the enjoyment derived is a part of their functionality.

The line between tool and toy is ever vague.

[cdgt]

The definition of "need" is very vague as well. If a handy gun helps you sleep better every night, and you need to sleep well every night, the gun is needed every night. Even if unfired.

The notion that someone only needs or gets their money's worth out of a gun if they get into a conflict and also win said conflict is a dubious premise.

[Marcus]

It's in Herodotus, and Graves mentions it several times in his Claudius novels, the original quote is attributed to Solon. Allegedly it was the basis of the education of a Persian noble warrior, or at least an ideal. Similar expressions exist among the steppe peoples.

Can you supply any documentation whatsoever for those claims?

[Demon of Undoing]

Ibrahim


The more I see your thoughts the more I think we overlap in important ways. Sorry about guilt by association.


I agree with your argument from utility. If I teach people,before we even talk about what gun and how to shoot it, I ask them where their fire extinguisher is. 'Nuff said.


However, look at an expanded notion of utility with diminished costs. I can, for $500, get someone up and running and able to minimally defend their home. Past maybe ten hours to begin with, they will retain that ability with virtually no time investment afterward. This is, admittedly, achievable with many other legal schemes beyond the firehose style of gun sales.

But. A gun- rich environment, with high capability tools and ready training, allows me significantly more ability. As a single individual, I can dollar for dollar deal with a hell of a lot more of a problem associated with firearms than fire. I would have had zero problem with Zimmerman confronting a stranger in his neighborhood, no phone, no police, hell, no GUN- if he'd had the salt in his pockets or the certificates on his wall to do that. He didn't. I will insert myself far, far further into situations than he did.

The gorilla in the room here is that US law allows and encourages its people to act as agents of order. It is understood that it is the right of law abiding citizens to take over much of their own policing duties. I prefer it this way, in total, because having worked for the police, I only trust them with so much.

[cincinnatus]

Philisophy of individual choices to spend their cash on a debatable utility...

Remington or Mossberg for a pump shotgun? I'm leanin' Remington 870.

And why do over-under shotguns cost so damn much?????

[Demon of Undoing]

Philisophy of individual choices to spend their cash on a debatable utility...

Remington or Mossberg for a pump shotgun? I'm leanin' Remington 870.

And why do over-under shotguns cost so damn much?????

Remingn is generally thought of as a more durable frame. Honestly, though, I've never seen a shot- out Mossberg.