Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Discussion in comments elsewhere...

From a (thus far) polite discussion with an antigun-type elsewhere...
You want to carry a gun because as a tool, it has force.
Maybe I want to carry a gun because it matches my shoes.
It can maim or kill me.
No it cannot. It is entirely inert.
Provided we have no intend to harm each-other, you caring a gun is unnecessary within our theoretical meeting.
Provided I have no intent to email anyone, my carrying an iPad is unnecessary within our theoretical meeting. (But if my heart held the hidden malice you keep implying it does, you would not want me holding a one-and-a-third pound slab of metal and tempered glass, would you?)
In this meeting, you with a gun, me without, some chance of mishap exists.
How? Do I get possessed by a Zortian brain slug? Do you go crazy and try and grab my gun? I’m trying to find this “element of risk” and not spotting it and all I get is hand-waving in response.
You carry your gun to potentially, or purportedly, thwart crime.
You have no idea why I carry a gun, nor is it really any more business of yours than why I picked the color undergarments I am wearing, as you are extremely unlikely to catch a glimpse of either barring a dramatic wardrobe malfunction.
My risk/reward calculation tells me I don’t want you around with a gun.
Fortunately my Supreme Court says that what you want has very little bearing on the matter. People in hell want ice water. You want me to not carry a gun. It’s good to want things.

Here’s some thoughts on which to chew:
#1) I think it is highly unlikely that I will ever need a firearm to save my live.
#2) I have already been wrong about #1 on more than one occasion.

(I usually avoid this internets debate stuff like the plague because both parties wind up talking past each other, but he seemed polite and willing to engage, so what the hell... )


Yrro said...

I should add that, even if one accepts the common anti-gun concept that higher magazine capacities have changed things since the 2nd amendment was drafted... that has zero bearing on the argument against accidental discharge. An old black powder gun has nowhere close to the number of physical safeties that a modern carry gun has, and you're not going to ND an entire magazine worth of rounds before you realize what is going on. The relative merits versus risks of carry within a city was already settled in that debate.

Drang said...

Shades of Gecko45 and his buddy SPECOPS in comments...

ProudHillbilly said...

"nor is it really any more business of yours than why I picked the color undergarments I am wearing"

Exactly. It's nobody's business.

Scott J said...

Looking for the Cooper quote about the gun having no will of its own but my interwebz fu seems off today.

I tend to use a modified version of that when a fellow Christian wonders if science is compatible with our faith.

Scott J said...

ProudHillbilly, I'm trying to figure out how a wardrobe malfunction could even be in Tam's universe of possibility :)

IIRC she tends to prefer stuff like 511 gear which isn't known to malfunction.

Windy Wilson said...

"I think it is highly unlikely that I will ever need a firearm to save my life."

That's sort of like winning the lottery no one wants to enter, except the decision of whether you play or not is not yours to make.

These things happen often enough (except in the minds of the anti-self defense thugs) that one needs to prepare for them.

Anonymous said...

I had a brief discussion today with an acquaintance who believes he is such a bad ass that a gun "would just get in his way."

This from a 55 year old man who's 40 pounds over weight and who has had two heart attacks in the last 7years.

These kinds of discussions tend to make me laugh as I walk away.


John Richardson said...

Having read your comments and where the conversation was taking place, I am left with one unresolved question.

WTF is an anti-gunner doing reading and posting on the forum? I should think that would be the last place he or she would be on the Interwebs.

Scott J said...

The definition of "use" can be kind of loose too.

The "real parts store" where I was a counterman for 4 years was just across the railroad tracks from "da hood".

The place had been robbed a few times in broad daylight so employees were encouraged to carry if they wished.

Sometimes a thuggish sort would come to the counter for parts to fix his ride acting as thug as possible and mumbling semi-threatening things under his breath.

Usually whichever of us wasn't looking up his part would bend or squat to straighten something on a low shelf causing or firearm to print against our shirt.

It was amazing how much more calm and respectful the fellow on the other side of the counter would get after that.

Opinionated Grump (Rich in NC) said...

“ My risk/reward calculation tells me I don’t want you around with a gun.”

What kind of arithmetic is that?

Rich in NC

Tam said...

New Math.

s said...

I have heard a local sheriff deputy, a fire fighter and an EMT all three (separately) describe my neighborhood as "heroin alley". It's fairly common to see Law Enforcement helicopters flying over. In the past few years, there have been home invasions in my neighborhood where everyone in the house was killed (I believe these were drug related, so they *SHOULDN'T* apply to me, but even drug addled shitheads can get the wrong house).

I don't live in a war zone. I live in "real" America.

I still think #1 applies to me, but I'm not going to bet my life (or more importantly, the lives of my family) on it.


Anonymous said...

Why do I hear the voice of HAL when you're quoting him? He a 'bot?

That would 'splain why he's in the thread.


leaddog said...

@ Tam and Grump

It is the same math that says it is preferable to have a news weasel wringing their hands over 20 school kids massacred than have the principal explain the ventilated torso of a potential attacker laying in the hall while all of the kids are safe.

Matt W said...

Thanks for sending me down the idiot hole for a half hour, I needed a mind numbing experience to renew my appreciation for the exciting and interesting work that I do (I'm a financial auditor....)

AndyN said...

I had expected you to go somewhere completely different with your iPad comment. If I bring an iPad to a meeting with someone I'm antagonistic toward, record the meeting, selectively edit the recording and release it via social media, it can potentially do more damage than just smacking someone in the face with an iPad.

Or to use an actual real world example instead of a hypothetical - which is more of a danger to a community's welfare, the guy open carrying in a coffee shop, or the guy who diverts police resources to hassle the guy open carrying in the coffee shop because guns are icky?

Paul said...

Well, by my math needing 1 time but not having is not a number I want to contemplate.

If you are nervous around me carrying a gun, go somewhere else. I won't be missing you.

Ancient Woodsman said...

Following your lead I went over there and read that stuff. My blood pressure spiked and came out in a horrific rant - not enough Lisonopril & Toprol to counter such things. Sorry about that.

I don't usually see such mindless drones, but you sure seem to have a knack for digging them up now and again. I generally try to avoid getting involved in such things, but the whole "you only wear a gun because you hope to use it" accusation really, really hit below the belt. What a jerk.

Robb Allen said...

Sadly, TBG conflates probability with possibility.

It's possible he is walking behind Tam, who trips over a garden snail and during her tumble, dislodges her Smith & Glock 33mm Revolver, discharging a burst of three rounds that ricochet off a school bus and strikes the guy in the elbow. It's possible, but not highly likely.

Go look up "accidental shootings" that involve normal, non-criminals carrying guns. They do exist. There are plenty of Cleti out there who feel the need to coonfinger their latest acquisition in their Floppy Dave's Discount Corduroy holster, but the # of people actually harmed by such requires scientific notation to express, it's so slight.

Now, compare that number (the risk TBG says is too high) and compare it with violent crime rates per 10k. Much, much higher. For some of us, like myself, that % shot up to 100 at one point in our lives.

So, I call it faux-concern that uses slight of hand to conflate a .00001% chance of injury against a 50/50 DEATH DISMEMBERMENT AND LOSS OF ONE OR SEVERAL SENSORY ORGANS!!! type event.

Don't let the calm tone of voice fool you, they no more care about the statistical harm / social benefits than they do real numbers.

Archer said...

I'd debate the point that you've been wrong about #1 multiple times. You're entirely correct; it IS highly unlikely you'll need it.

But it's also highly unlikely a roulette wheel will land on double-zero twice in a row. That doesn't mean it doesn't ever happen. It's a risk; like any risk, you can either ignore it or do what you can to manage it.

You choose the latter, he chooses the former (insert dramatic "at his peril. *DUM DUM DUUUUUUM*" here). If he's polite, he'll also choose to agree to disagree.

jdunmyer said...

The libs that are afraid of you and I carrying weapons are also the ones who want unilateral nuclear disarmament. After all, nukes in the hands of the USA are just as dangerous to the world as those in the hands of the NORKs.

Cincinnatus said...

Libertarian Chicken's answer remains the best one.

Rob said...

(I believe these were drug related, so they *SHOULDN'T* apply to me, but even drug addled shitheads can get the wrong house)."

I wonder how often violent felons get the wrong house as compared to say, SWAT teams. But I repeat myself.

Anonymous said...

"It's possible he is walking behind Tam, who trips over a garden snail and during her tumble, dislodges her Smith & Glock .88 Magnum Revolver, discharging a burst of three rounds that ricochet through a school and strikes the guy in the elbow. It's possible, but not highly likely."


Kristophr said...

HippyDippy makes a good argument for mandatory open carry.

As for why I CC, it's because in some places, I might scare some little rabbit person.

When I can, I OC .

As for why I OC ... it's because I'm not willing to take a beatdown in order to make some little hippie happy.

Tam said...


"As for why I OC ... "

... you don't need to give me a reason. That's between you and your local community. :)

Robert Fowler said...

Paul said...
Well, by my math needing 1 time but not having is not a number I want to contemplate.

Unfortunately, I've been able to consider the numbers. Once was one time too many.

Mike_C said...

WTF is an anti-gunner doing reading and posting on the

Looking to meaningfully dialog with (sic) and enlighten a bitterly clinging part of the unwashed masses, I'd expect.

I did not follow the link because I've had (presumably) similar interactions for months in meatspace. After much back and forth the kernel finally emerged. "I don't like guns and think no one should have them."

Well, I really don't like rap music and truly think that the (anti)values promulgated in the "thug" subgenre is way more harmful to society at large, as well as to individuals, than all the sequelae from all the dumbass coonfingering NDs that have ever happened. But I respect the right of the people putting out that crap to put it out there, and the right of the people who want to endure, er listen to it, to listen to it*. A shame the other side finds itself unable to do the same for 2A rights.

*But those frikkin boom-boom cars should be blown up with the owners still in them. And get offa my damn lawn, you kids!

Anonymous said...


HippyDippy would do more to prevent "gun violence" by following your preferred ban than the one he is pursuing; all those wannabethugs in Chitown are trying to live (and die) by that shit.

And while as you say there's a right to produce it, and to each his own...but a much better case could be made that it infringes the rights of the public a lot more than carrying a tool in a belt.


Anonymous said...

YOU-CANNOT-FIX-STUPID. So why bother to try? Do you have hope? Or do you just enjoy the pain?--Ray

Bubblehead Les. said...

I've come to the conclusion that, due to the Laws of Physics, having to live on this Planet wherein there is only 24 hours in a day, my time would be better spent NOT encaging these Anti-Freedom Shills.

Instead, I shall put them in the category of "I'll talk with you after I get my Chores done, one of which is cleaning out my Earwax."

Which tells you how LOW I now regard them.

Micki Mahoney said...

Yeesh! Anti-gunner raises points, is answered on all levels and just keeps repeating the same points on a loop. On this evidence, they're not even mentally capable of understanding your answers.

staghounds said...

I hope he stays away from people in cars, too.

Kristophr said...


The Victim Disarmament crowd is teaching themselves to never argue facts.

The current playbook they use urges them to only hit emotional issues, and to avoid arguing logically.

So if you attempt to use reason, they have literally been trained to just ignore it and keep blood dancing for as long as the moderator is willing to put up with their crap.

Ed said...

Hmmm. I bet he also does not approve of Spice smokin' lumberjacks wandering the streets of St. Petersburg Florida, either, but would be entirely unprepared to deal with it other than high pitch shrieking and wetting his drawers:

Since there are Spice smokin' lumberjacks out there, and others like them, and I can no longer run faster than them, I carry.

Kristophr said...

Tam: Indeed.

Inappropriate OC can cause all sorts of issues with the community. Here in Cheyenne, the usual 911 response to an OC complaint is a suggestion to the frightened caltard to HTFU.

I still can't believe those retards that insisted on walking into Starbucks with slung AR-15s.

Threeper, please ... can't you find something more appropriate, like jogging through a city park with an AK-47 pistol in your hands?

Will said...


I think you mis-read Tam's blog post. #2 is from her personal experience, IIRC.

Tpa Gunslinger said...

Your thoughts on which to chew fit my wife wonderfully. Thankfully, she didn't have to proceed to #2. She used a mans gun to fend him off in one of his mean drunken stupors. Cops took him away cause she missed.
After meeting me, she wouldn't miss again.

Opinionated Grump (Rich in NC) said...

I tried to read all the comments in the pistol training posting, and now my eyes are bleeding...
I am in awe of your intestinal fortitude, Tam.

I need eye bleach and soft gauze patches to let them heal now.

Rich in NC

perlhaqr said...

I lasted about four comments in on that thread before I bailed. That guy was clearly just there to troll y'all and waste your time.

Derfel Cadarn said...

To all the anti-gun and anti -whatever rectal openings out there, your right to be offended does NOT trump my right to be offensive! They bare equal, you remember equal you all always whining about it. Now be good little bedwetters and get over yourselves.