5 ms·

I don't see as the US as being monsters, just that it seems very very important to you. I spent a couple of years in the air cadets (youth version of the air f

by icc97 9y ago

I don't see as the US as being monsters, just that it seems very very important to you. I spent a couple of years in the air cadets (youth version of the air force) and I fired rifles there. I can see reasons for it in the military. You're right it is very much a skill and a very important one in human history to be able hit a target. Archery does something similar but I don't see people collecting hundreds of bows and arrows. But literally I've never known someone who owns a handgun, or been in a house where there is one. Let alone automatic rifles. I'm not saying that it's wrong or right just foreign. Cheers for the invitation :) If you come this side of the pond I'll find some exciting cheese rolling competition for you to do

KGIII 9y ago
Oh, I own several dozen bows, a wide collection of arrows, and a couple of crossbows. I take a couple of handicapped people out to hunt and Maine allows handicapped people to hunt with a crossbow. Wow... We are so far off-topic, but we're being civil and productive so, hopefully, nobody minds too much. Email is available and an option. On that note, I'd probably rather be shot with a bullet than with a bolt from a crossbow. The energy imparted by a fairly bog standard crossbow at 100 yards is about the same amount of energy imparted by a .45 at 6". The damage a bolt causes is unbelievable, if you're not familiar with it. Even a simple recurve bow with a 70# draw imparts a great deal of force. I can reasonably fire three arrows in ten seconds. Anyhow, I do hunt during archery season - if you hadn't guessed. I'll be harvesting my deer during archery season and haven't decided if I'm going to try for a bear with a bow. I'm worried about not getting a clean shot and the bear suffering needlessly. As mentioned before, I kill and process the vast majority of the meat that I eat. I respect the animal and don't want to cause additional or prolonged suffering. I guess the partial point I'm making is that a firearm is a tool and needn't be used to harm humans. I have other tools that will readily harm a human. I don't plan on ever doing so and would go to great lengths to avoid doing so. Not all of us want to be Rambo and dream about fighting off bad guys in an active shooter situation. Unlike the movies, getting shot at kind of sucks and is scary. I'd like to avoid that. The problem is, and it is a problem, we have people who seem to fetishizes just that. We also have crazy people. I submit there's overlap between those two groups.
- kbenson 9y ago
  > I guess the partial point I'm making is that a firearm is a tool and needn't be used to harm humans. This brings to mind my stance over the last few years regarding firearms, which is I think it would be beneficial to outlaw handguns (as opposed to rifles or shotguns), if it could be feasibly done (it probably can't, there's far too many out there already). Firearms can be utilitarian, but the extra utility offered by miniaturizing them to the point that they are easily carried on your body, and easily hidden on your body, seems to encourage modes of use that are detrimental. Police, of course, may have reason to need a small firearm handy, but even then there seem to be problems where it's so easy to access that it's used inappropriately (or even accidentally used instead of a taser).
  - KGIII 9y ago
    When hunting bears, it's prudent to carry a sidearm. Bears will sometimes stay really still, appearing as if they're dead, and will attack when you get close enough. (That situation counts for every black bear attack in Maine since the 1880s.) A rifle isn't as easily maneuvered in tight situations and close up. You don't want to damage the meat more than you have to - so that you're maximizing the value. Dispatching a wounded animal (of other types) with a pistol is fairly common and the rounds are less likely to cause much more damage. Additionally, I rabbit hunt with a .22 (Ruger Mk II) frequently. Opportunistic rabbits are delicious and easily taken with a small round. Then, there's sport shooting. Pistol clubs and competitions are quite common activities in certain spheres. I was on both a rifle and pistol club. (Back then, they were actually functions at my school. Our firearms were locked in the closet in the headmaster's office.) So, there's justified reasons to own a pistol. Also, as you suggested, I have no idea how they'd get them off the street. I can't even begin to imagine the uproar. As an aside, as far as I know, the largest mass killing of civilians in America was at the Battle of Wounded Knee. After disarming the civilians, they massacred a bunch of them, including women and children. When the Revolution really got started, the British were marching their way to Concord to confiscate the powder, shot, and cannon. They were going to go disarm the citizens. I have no idea how we'd be able to get pistols off the street and I'm not sure that'd actually solve anything. Most firearm deaths that aren't suicides are caused by people who aren't actually interested in obeying the law. Even if we could, I'm not sure that I'd want to give up that liberty. Freedom does come with penalties. Liberties come with associated risk. We can speculate that speech is a more a cause than the firearm used to commit the act, I don't want to give up that right either. As for the police, I'd like to disarm them except for specially trained officers and only for use in certain situations. I don't see that as being political feasible either. Call it a hunch, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.

by icc97 9y ago

KGIII 9y ago

Oh, I own several dozen bows, a wide collection of arrows, and a couple of crossbows. I take a couple of handicapped people out to hunt and Maine allows handicapped people to hunt with a crossbow. Wow... We are so far off-topic, but we're being civil and productive so, hopefully, nobody minds too much. Email is available and an option. On that note, I'd probably rather be shot with a bullet than with a bolt from a crossbow. The energy imparted by a fairly bog standard crossbow at 100 yards is about the same amount of energy imparted by a .45 at 6". The damage a bolt causes is unbelievable, if you're not familiar with it. Even a simple recurve bow with a 70# draw imparts a great deal of force. I can reasonably fire three arrows in ten seconds. Anyhow, I do hunt during archery season - if you hadn't guessed. I'll be harvesting my deer during archery season and haven't decided if I'm going to try for a bear with a bow. I'm worried about not getting a clean shot and the bear suffering needlessly. As mentioned before, I kill and process the vast majority of the meat that I eat. I respect the animal and don't want to cause additional or prolonged suffering. I guess the partial point I'm making is that a firearm is a tool and needn't be used to harm humans. I have other tools that will readily harm a human. I don't plan on ever doing so and would go to great lengths to avoid doing so. Not all of us want to be Rambo and dream about fighting off bad guys in an active shooter situation. Unlike the movies, getting shot at kind of sucks and is scary. I'd like to avoid that. The problem is, and it is a problem, we have people who seem to fetishizes just that. We also have crazy people. I submit there's overlap between those two groups.

kbenson 9y ago
> I guess the partial point I'm making is that a firearm is a tool and needn't be used to harm humans. This brings to mind my stance over the last few years regarding firearms, which is I think it would be beneficial to outlaw handguns (as opposed to rifles or shotguns), if it could be feasibly done (it probably can't, there's far too many out there already). Firearms can be utilitarian, but the extra utility offered by miniaturizing them to the point that they are easily carried on your body, and easily hidden on your body, seems to encourage modes of use that are detrimental. Police, of course, may have reason to need a small firearm handy, but even then there seem to be problems where it's so easy to access that it's used inappropriately (or even accidentally used instead of a taser).
- KGIII 9y ago
  When hunting bears, it's prudent to carry a sidearm. Bears will sometimes stay really still, appearing as if they're dead, and will attack when you get close enough. (That situation counts for every black bear attack in Maine since the 1880s.) A rifle isn't as easily maneuvered in tight situations and close up. You don't want to damage the meat more than you have to - so that you're maximizing the value. Dispatching a wounded animal (of other types) with a pistol is fairly common and the rounds are less likely to cause much more damage. Additionally, I rabbit hunt with a .22 (Ruger Mk II) frequently. Opportunistic rabbits are delicious and easily taken with a small round. Then, there's sport shooting. Pistol clubs and competitions are quite common activities in certain spheres. I was on both a rifle and pistol club. (Back then, they were actually functions at my school. Our firearms were locked in the closet in the headmaster's office.) So, there's justified reasons to own a pistol. Also, as you suggested, I have no idea how they'd get them off the street. I can't even begin to imagine the uproar. As an aside, as far as I know, the largest mass killing of civilians in America was at the Battle of Wounded Knee. After disarming the civilians, they massacred a bunch of them, including women and children. When the Revolution really got started, the British were marching their way to Concord to confiscate the powder, shot, and cannon. They were going to go disarm the citizens. I have no idea how we'd be able to get pistols off the street and I'm not sure that'd actually solve anything. Most firearm deaths that aren't suicides are caused by people who aren't actually interested in obeying the law. Even if we could, I'm not sure that I'd want to give up that liberty. Freedom does come with penalties. Liberties come with associated risk. We can speculate that speech is a more a cause than the firearm used to commit the act, I don't want to give up that right either. As for the police, I'd like to disarm them except for specially trained officers and only for use in certain situations. I don't see that as being political feasible either. Call it a hunch, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.