What is your primary reason for owning a firearm?

[Terran]

Poll question: What is your primary reason for owning a firearm?

Just think of this as research. I'm interested in the varying reasons people here express regarding their possession of firearms. Pick your most important reason for owning firearms.

Dirk

(Edit: correct stupid ass grammar mistake in title)

Poll result (30 votes)
I collect them as antiques or curiosities.	(1 votes, 3%)	Vote
I use them recreationally.	(6 votes, 20%)	Vote
I own them to defend myself, my family, and my property from criminals.	(15 votes, 50%)	Vote
I own them to defend myself, my family, and my property against governmental tryanny.	(3 votes, 10%)	Vote
I bought them because I have been the victim of a crime.	(1 votes, 3%)	Vote
I own them because it's a family tradition to have them.	(1 votes, 3%)	Vote
I'm currently or formerly in the military or reserves	(1 votes, 3%)	Vote
I'm currently or formerly in law enforcement.	(0 votes, 0%)	Vote
I work in the gun manufacturing industry and own them out of professional interest.	(1 votes, 3%)	Vote
I belong to a political group that expects its members to be armed.	(1 votes, 3%)	Vote

[Superfly]

1. Can't vote...

the whole poll is scrolling across the page!

It's like trying to hit a moving target with a shotgun...you have to lead...BLAM!

[Superfly]

2. OK, it stopped

whatcha do wrong?

[Terran]

6. Heheh!

Fooled ya! It was all about target practice!

[Terran]

3. Boy, watch out for those html tags

I had the whole damn poll scrolling across the screen sideways with my sig line!

Edit: I removed the tag <marquee> from my sig line. Sorry folks. At least there's actually a poll to vote in!

[Superfly]

4. A, B, C, D, and E for me

although 6 out of the 7 guns I have are of the recreational type, one is strictly for home/personal defense.

[Terran]

5. I'm going to put up another one

asking for your secondary reason for owning. I'm interested in whether people's reasons are theoretical or in response to some actual life experience.

Dirk

[1a2b3c]

7. I cant answer this with the results in your poll

Shotguns- I own them for bird hunting. I have many different guns for many reasons. 10GA for ducks. 12ga for all others. I own more than one twelve gauge because some are for pheasants and some are for turkeys. I also have more than one so that my friends can use one if they dont have one. Some are old collectables also. The 2 .410s were an inheritance from my grandpa and my dad.

Rifles- Again, you need a diferent gun to hunt diferent game in diferent situations. My 30-30 was used for close range deer hunting in heavy cover. The .270 is for deer at a longer range. .22's are good for small game and plinking.

Handguns- There use to be a .44mag around here for hunting but my brother in law stole it. So now the only handguns are used for self defense and plinking.

The AR15- to piss off people who say i shouldnt have one. And its the best plinking rifle i own.

So i have a mix of hunting, tradition, self defense, and one "just for shits and giggles".

[Terran]

8. All the hunting stuff comes under recreation,

as does "plinking" (I think). Surely you must have one reason among those that is more important to you than the others?

[1a2b3c]

9. Hunting of course

is #1. Only because im not really worried about getting car jacked on a late night trip to get a pack of smokes anymore....i moved out of Tacoma.

[Terran]

10. I like your new sig, btw

It's a little less ++++***B U S Y***++++.

[iverglas]

18. Fascinating

"Handguns- There use to be a .44mag around here for hunting but my brother in law stole it. So now the only handguns are used for self defense and plinking."

But of course you still own the stolen handgun.

So you really ought to tell us what it's used for.

Hunting, right? He just couldn't be bothered buying one of his own, maybe? Not being acquainted with your brother-in-law, I can't guess what his motives for taking it would be, or yours for not getting it back. Perhaps there's just a long tradition in your family of taking other family members' stuff, and everybody considers it to be an informal "gifting" process ...

.

[Superfly]

20. Don't read so much into it

not everybody has a criminal intent, iverglas.

I had a 7mm Magnum rifle in my house that my brother took from me when he was visiting. He told me later that he had it, and I don't expect it back. No biggie, we're brothers and he can take whatever he wants from me, except my wife and dog.

"But of course you still own the stolen handgun."

No. If there was a national gun registry, 123 would show up as the owner, but here in the US, we still enjoy the freedom of privacy.

"So you really ought to tell us what it's used for."

I don't think he owes anybody that. It's not your gun, so you have no right asking what he or his Brother-in-law does with it.

[MrBenchley]

21. Yes it's a blessing to know

that when brother in law shoots somebody, the cops will have no way to trace the gun.....

"If there was a national gun registry, 123 would show up as the owner, but here in the US, we still enjoy the freedom of privacy."

"Enjoy" is a mordantly funny verb, all in all....

[Superfly]

22. Wow, more hyperbole!

That's so unlike you, Bench.

Do you think everybody who owns a gun is a criminal or will become one soon?

[MrBenchley]

33. Nope, just fact...

As you yourself said, there's nno way to trace it....

"Do you think everybody who owns a gun is a criminal"
Does that include people who steal them, fly?

[Superfly]

35. We shall just have to wait to see what

123 meant by "stole". He might have been speaking tongue-in-cheek...

[MrBenchley]

36. Hahahahahahaha....

Maybe when he said "stole" he REALLY meant "joined the unorganized militia."

[slackmaster]

24. Nonsense

The gun is almost certainly traceable. From the serial number the manufacturer's records will indicate where it was initially sold. As long as that happened no earlier than 1968 there will be a record of who it was sold to. The chain of ownership can be traced.

[MrBenchley]

34. Serves me right

for believing anything any of the RKBA crowd post.....

[iverglas]

26. tsk tsk

"But of course you still own the stolen handgun."

"No. If there was a national gun registry, 123 would show up as the owner, but here in the US, we still enjoy the freedom of privacy."

There's no national registry of car stereos either, right?

So if I get into your car and take yours, it's now mine?

Methinks that you will still consider yourself to be the owner of that car stereo, somehow. And the law, oddly enough, will agree with you.

So my question about 1a2b3c's handgun really does stand. Who is the owner? If it's 1a2b3c, why didn't he answer for that firearm as he did for all the others??

You didn't describe the rifle that your brother took from you as being "stolen". You said he took it and you don't expect it back. That, we could call a gift, just as I suggested. It would appear that you dealt with the firearm in such a way that your intention of making a gift of it to your brother can be inferred. In which case he would now be the owner. Like I said.

You say you don't expect it back. If he sold it, would you want the proceeds? If he died, would you expect to get it back? In that case, it would be a loan, and you would still be the owner.

1a2b3c said that his brother-in-law "stole" the handgun from him. He may well have been speaking facetiously. I might say that my mother "stole" my undergraduate degree diploma from me, when she removed it from its place of honour on the wall of my bathroom, without telling me, and took it home to be looked after with the respect she thought it deserved. I would be speaking facetiously. On the other hand, when a former co-vivant of mine took my VCR to sell, he really did steal it. Like I said, I am not acquainted with 1a2b3c's brother-in-law, and so have no idea how he was using the word.

Property really just doesn't have to be "registered" somewhere in order to be owned, and in order for the owner to have an interest in it that can be asserted against all other comers.

If someone steals a firearm that you own, you are still the owner. Simple fact, from which no consequences other than your right to claim it back necessarily flow.

"So you really ought to tell us what it's used for."

"I don't think he owes anybody that. It's not your gun, so you have no right asking what he or his Brother-in-law does with it."

Para-noi-a.

He's the one who chose to answer an internet survey, and chose to provide the information in question. His choice entirely. The information was incomplete. Do you think he has something to hide??

.

[Superfly]

28. First of all....

I think we should wait until 123 gets on the forum so he might shed some light on what he ment by "stole". Hence, the title of my post "Don't read so much into it".

People here have a tendency to go off half-cocked.

As for ownership, there is a little principle that goes something like this "possession is 9/10's of the law". If 123's brother did in fact steal the gun, then his recourse to claim the gun would only be through legal channels, assuming he has enough evidence to prove that the gun is, in fact, his.

And, having a receipt from a gun store for a purchase of said weapon is not enough. Private transfers of guns in this country can be done with or without cash and definitely with or without receipts of sale.

So, all his brother has to say is: I bought the gun from my brother with cash and have no records to back that up. The burden of proof would be on 123.

So, if someone steals a firearm, you are not the owner. You have to prove prior ownership through legal channels to gain your property again.

"There's no national registry of car stereos either, right?"

That is correct. As far as the law is concerned, I will have to press charges and seek a return of the equipment to reassert ownership.

"Para-noi-a."

OK. No. He chose to answer a internet survey and it will be his choice to answer any queries from you or anybody else in the future. Your demand that "So you really ought to tell us what it's used for", is not one that you, or anybody, can make. You're getting a little big for your britches if you think you can rightfully demand an answer to that or any question.

[iverglas]

30. PRE first of all

After all, I did go first, and you seem to be trying to forget what I actually said:

"But of course you still own the stolen handgun.

So you really ought to tell us what it's used for.

Hunting, right? He just couldn't be bothered buying one of his own, maybe? Not being acquainted with your brother-in-law, I can't guess what his motives for taking it would be, or yours for not getting it back. Perhaps there's just a long tradition in your family of taking other family members' stuff, and everybody considers it to be an informal "gifting" process ..."

You said, as you say:

"I think we should wait until 123 gets on the forum so he might shed some light on what he ment by 'stole'. Hence, the title of my post 'Don't read so much into it'."

The plain and obvious fact is that I didn't read ANYTHING into anything. I asked a question. 1a2b3c gave a partial answer to the question asked. I thought a complete answer would be more useful.


"As for ownership, there is a little principle that goes something like this "possession is 9/10's of the law". If 123's brother did in fact steal the gun, then his recourse to claim the gun would only be through legal channels, assuming he has enough evidence to prove that the gun is, in fact, his."

Cripes, how about the little principle that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"? You plainly don't know what that 9/10 is all about, but you've heard it said, so you say it. Hint: it's an historical description, not a prospective prescription. Try here (I cite this for the accurate characterization of "possession" and "property", not the more idiosyncratic theories of the author):

http://futurepositive.synearth.net/stories/storyReader$...

The possession of an object does not mean that the possessor has a moral or rational claim to ownership of the object. The political, economic, and social structures of our present world are all based on our concept of ‘property’ and property rights. ... Therefore adversary ‘property’ is property obtained by force or fraud, and then held with physical force. Neutral ‘property’ is property purchased in the fair market, and held by right of law enforced by neutral government.

Remember Neutrality was an evolutionary advance from Adversity, at the time of Neutrality’s inception most possessions were adversary. They had been obtained through force or fraud and held with physical force. The new institutions of Neutrality never made any attempt to correct what by the new values of Neutrality would be past injustices. Neutral values would prevail in future, but the past was left alone. This resulted in the legal precedent wherein possession is 9/10 of the law.

These days, the things we lawfully have are things we have acquired not by force or fraud, before someone else had an enforceable claim to them, but by purchase or trade or gift or creation.

If someone stole 1a2b3c's anything, he would have an absolute right to take it back again. No "legal channels" necessary. He might prefer to use "legal channels" to avoid any misunderstandings, but that's his choice.

Here's the definition of "theft" from my Criminal Code; feel free to check yours:

Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything whether animate or inanimate, with intent,

(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it; ...

The owner of a thing from whom it has been stolen, you see, very definitely has a "colour of right" in that thing. The very brightest colour possible: it is his/hers. S/he is the owner of it. And s/he is absolutely entitled to assert that right and regain lawful possession of what was taken from him/her by taking it back.

If someone did commit the theft of 1a2b3c's handgun, he is still the owner of it. I swan: if he weren't the owner, because it was taken from him and the taker had become the owner ... how would proving that he once was the owner, before it was taken from him, mean that he could get it back???

"So, all his brother has to say is: I bought the gun from my brother with cash and have no records to back that up. The burden of proof would be on 123."

Uh, yeah. And if I say that I bought that car stereo from you with cash and have no records to back it up ...

Who cares, anyhow? I'm not suggesting that 1a2b3c has any duty to do anything in respect of that gun. You're the one reading an awful lot into things here. If he wants to leave his gun in the hands of someone who stole it, then barring any law requiring him to do anything else, which is entirely irrelevant to our discussion here, he's free to do it.

Our discussion here is about nothing more nor less than why someone owns firearms. 1a2b3c responded by stating the purposes for which his firearms are used. He neglected to give that information for one firearm in particular. All I did was ask for the information.

"So, if someone steals a firearm, you are not the owner. You have to prove prior ownership through legal channels to gain your property again."

No, and I find it difficult to retain a straight face, even, in responding to such dreadful silliness.

Good grief, if that were the law, just imagine how much stuff some of us might have. I took your stuff so now *I* am the owner of it, and you can't take it back, nyah nyah. I can see why someone who thinks like this might want to have a lot of firearms around ...


"OK. No. He chose to answer a internet survey and it will be his choice to answer any queries from you or anybody else in the future. Your demand that 'So you really ought to tell us what it's used for', is not one that you, or anybody, can make. You're getting a little big for your britches if you think you can rightfully demand an answer to that or any question."

Hey, sweetie. I can "demand" anything I bloody well want. And yes indeedy, nobody has to comply with my demand.

1a2b3c did not HAVE to answer the question posed in the poll.

He CHOSE to answer the question.

He CHOSE to answer it incompletely.

I ASKED for a complete answer.

You foolishly claim that my saying that he "oughta tell us" the answer is a "demand" (but so what if it were?). It's an expression of opinion; I do indeed believe that he ought to tell, that he ought not to conceal the purpose for which one firearm is used while revealing the purposes for which the others are used.

People might just draw inferences from the partial nature of the disclosure. You know; if I say "I went to work on Monday and Tuesday and Thursday and Friday", but don't tell you what I did on Wednesday, you might think that I didn't go to work.

Me, I didn't draw any inferences. I might, if the question is ultimately not answered. Just like you might if I never did tell you what I did on Wednesday, despite your specifically asking me. But unless you had some reason to believe that what I did was rob a bank, you shouldn't draw that particular inference. But you might reasonably draw the inference that I have some reason for not telling you what I did on Wednesday.

I have no particular reason to draw any particular inference if 1a2b3c declines to answer my question, so about the only one I'd draw would be that he had some reason for not wanting to answer, even though he volunteered the information in question about his other firearms and voluntarily disclosed the existence of this one.

My working theory is in fact that when he said that his brother-in-law "stole" his handgun, he was speaking in exactly the same way as I was when I said that my mother "stole" my B.A. Facetiously. As I suggested in my original post. But I'm still curious. If you aren't, then that's fine with me.

.

[Superfly]

31. Dupe

Sowwy

[Superfly]

32. Hey, sweetie,

[iverglas]

37. admission of defeat heard and acknowledged

I can only hope I helped you to learn something, eh?

[1a2b3c]

50. Um if i still owned the gun i wouldnt have said it was stolen

[1a2b3c]

52. I guess i dont get what youre asking

I dont really own the gun anymore if it was stolen. There was really no proof as to who stole it. Its been blamed on him since it happened. I lived 2000 miles away when it was stolen. Does that cover everything?

[iverglas]

68. do try reading

I've explained in considerable, clear detail that you DO still own the gun if it has been stolen. Feel free to read what I've said, and post something meaningful in response if you like.

You do not have POSSESSION or CONTROL of the gun, but you have OWNERSHIP of it.

How do you think that stolen property could ever be returned to the people from whom it was stolen if they did not still OWN it???

If one could acquire ownership of property simply by TAKING it, what would the world come to??

That is exactly how things used to work in the very bad very old days (where that "possession is 9/10 of the law" came from) -- people acquired ownership of things by taking them, by whatever means they chose. We long ago decided this was a very bad idea.


It's a separate question, but: are you under any statutory obligation to report the theft of a firearm? If so, did you report it? (You know, of course, that in order to report a theft, you do not have to know who committed it ... although withholding information you have in that regard would not likely be regarded favourably.)


And of course, there's always my original question, the one you answered for all your other firearms: for what purpose(s) is that firearm now being used?

.

[1a2b3c]

73. Yep it was reported

We think the gun got pawned for drugs since thats what happened to my dads skillsaw. We have a huge walk-in bank vault in the basement for storing the guns and other stuff dad collects. He left it open one night....next morning everything was there except the .44mag.

A couple days later he was in a pawn shop looking around at tools, and damned if he didnt find his skilsaw there for sale. He called the cops. The brother in law had to pay for the saw but the gun was never found. His dumbass might have just traded it to his meth dealer. Anyway there was no proof, therefore there is nothing else the cops could do.

Ohh yeah, and i guess i still own it....if its ever found.

[iverglas]

75. well there we have it, folks!

"We think the gun got pawned for drugs since thats what happened to my dads skillsaw. We have a huge walk-in bank vault in the basement for storing the guns and other stuff dad collects. He left it open one night....next morning everything was there except the .44mag. ... The brother in law had to pay for the saw but the gun was never found. His dumbass might have just traded it to his meth dealer. "


One more law-abiding gun owner behaves in such a negligent and irresponsible way that the firearm in his possession slips away into the criminal underworld, via a theft by someone who could easily have been foreseen to have had access to it and to have wanted it.

(I assume the firearm was lawfully in your father's possession? That it was legal for you to leave it in someone else's residence? Too bad you couldn't rely on him to store it safely. Looks like a bit of negligence on your part too, I'd say; your firearm, your responsibility to keep it out of the wrong hands.)

Sounds like there were other firearms in the vault. Funny how the criminal in question only took the handgun. Handguns sure do seem to be attractive to criminals. I wonder why? I wonder why anyone would ever want the private possession of handguns, in particular, to be restricted?

Yup, if criminals want guns, they'll sure enough find some way to get them. Why not just give them yours, eh?



Who knows how many people that handgun may have killed by now? How many crimes it may have been used to commit? How many kids may have been shot in drug-deal crossfire?

Who knows whether it's been sold and smuggled into Canada and used to commit a robbery in Toronto, or in a gang war shootout in Montreal?



Law-abiding gun owners. Some of 'em, I could sure live without.

This tale leaves me flabbergasted.

.

[liberalnurse]

11. I have mine because when I worked at the prison

as the Infirmary Nurse, the CO's always talked about guns and gun shows. I went with some of the guys, I later got a 38 and have learned to shoot, with the guys.

[Terran]

13. That's *how* you got your gun...

Put it another way: why do you keep (i.e., hold on to) your gun? Sounds maybe recreational? Did you vote?

[Man_in_the_Moon]

12. All of the above

Except the last one, I guess.

none of them are more important than the others to me.

[Terran]

14. Wow, that's rather amazing

that your life experience fits 9 out of 10 of the categories. So there isn't one of them that is more influential on you then the others? I would think that if you worked in law enforcement, that tends to give one a different outlook on things from most people.

I am amazed by the overall variey of responses to this poll!

[Man_in_the_Moon]

16. Sure

I collect them, I have some very old ones, and some have been in the family for 4 generations now.

I use them recreationally, and on occaision competitively.

I have some to defend myself against criminal activites of people, regardless of whether they are within the government or not. I have had an apartment burglarized, and had a very close friend raped and nearly killed.

I was in the military, and I also was a 'reserve deputy' for a few years (I helped serve warrants at 4-5 in the mornings, got a Susan B a year for that).

And I am also a 02/07 SOT, which means that I pay the yearly tax to be a 'Manufacturer of Firearms'.

And no, not one reason is more important than any other, but then I have always been around them, and I have never really thought of owning them for a special reason. They are like owning a hammer to me.

[1a2b3c]

53. I put my vote in for the last one

I made up my own political group.

[shatoga]

15. youse guys already know me/ here is reason #1

Freshly discharged from the military:

(very early 1970's)
GI haircut, clean shaven.

One week later (to the day) took two sisters out for dinner and a movie.
Then took them home.

afterwards:

Driving home;
In a good mood; happy to be back "in the world".
Nothing to worry about.
Safe at home in the good old US of A.!
No snipers, no enemy soldiers...Thanking God to be alive.


Stopped for a traffic light.


Suddenly surrounded by carloads of a football team from a local highschool.

One of them was being drafted.
He had just married his HS sweetheart and they were leaving the reception when I was spotted.

GI haircut etc. was everything they hated, because their buddy was being drafted.

My car closed in on on all sides by other cars.
Crashed into by other cars - my windows smashed and worse.

I got forced off the road.
Jumped by three, then five, then fifteen drunken hulking football players.

Knives came out.
I fought for my life against a gang assault.
Fifteen punks dogpiled on me.

Newspaper the next day said:
"Vietnam Vet attacks local football heroes." page one (local)

a week later my lawyer got them to print a retraction:
"Returning Vet attacked by Drunken football squad" page 17

Not my first unjustified sudden unexpected assault by total strangers.
but the last during which I was unarmed.



Released from the hospital:

Visited my parents & I got out the gun I'd bought back in high school
and carried it or another until right this very minute.

(Any idea what it's like to be kicked and hit by fifteen attackers
who suddenly come out of nowhere, for no reason?)

"Never again"

Ever since;
those who've choosen me out of the background,
to be their victims;
have made a very bad choice!

[RoeBear]

17. I voted for self defense ...

... but why wasn't 'to compensate for a small penis there'?
Nevermind, it's because Dirk posted this and not one of our anti-gunners.

[Terran]

19. LOL!

Thanks RoeBear! Yeah, I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti-gun violence...there's a difference.

[iverglas]

27. protesting too loudly?

"Yeah, I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti-gun violence...there's a difference."

I'm sure there is.

I'm just not sure what relevance it might have here, eh?

Sounds like dividing and self-defeating, to me.

("I'm not a feminist, but ... .")

.

[Terran]

48. Well,

I thought it was sort of the opposite of dividing (and I sure don't see it as self-defeating). When it comes to this issue, my normal bent for ideology is out the window--I am a realist, and I care about reducing the number of gun deaths in this country, not whether people own guns or not. So I try to understand the arguments of both sides (when they have one).

My own view is that we have a cultural problem here, not a problem with guns (the guns are a symptom of the cultural problem). Heal the culture, and maybe the guns are no longer such an issue.

Self-defeating? I think it's healthy to look for wisdom in opposing arguments. We're all progressives here, right? Ultimately, we stand together.

I have very great respect for you and your POV, iverglas. I just wish your posts could be a little more brief; time is fleeting.

Dirk

[iverglas]

49. You see what happens when I'm brief ...

What you had said was:

"I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti-gun violence...there's a difference."

My point was that there would be a difference ... if there were in fact two things that needed differentiating. I see that you didn't get my point!

Why would anyone distinguish him/herself from someone who was "anti-gun", unless there was someone else who was anti-gun? Is there? Is there someone whom *you* would agree should be characterized as "anti-gun", as compared to you, who are "anti-gun violence"?

It just reminded me of the "I'm not a feminist"s, you see. I'm not like those other silly people, who act out of improper motivations. I'm rational and well-intentioned; they're not. You can go ahead and ridicule/reject them, but you should like me.

And that's what I meant by dividing and self-defeating. The adversary doesn't even need to win; by agreeing with the adversary's characterization of others who seek the same ends as we do, we defeat ourselves.

You wish my posts could be a little more brief?

Well, you know what I wish? I wish that people who choose to discuss extremely serious and complex issues would make the tiniest effort to understand those issues, and that when they decide to express opinions about them they would avoid strewing totally pointless and worthless verbiage around the forum where they're doing it, multiplicities and flurries of posts serving no purpose whatsoever (except, all too often, to misrepresent the position taken by someone else). Post after post after post, offering no illumination on whatever the subject is, and no useful thoughts about it. Try counting the number of posts, rather than the number of words. I think you'll note a reversal of the figures, when you compare me to someone allegedly less wordy.

But you don't hear me whining constantly about it. If I find someone's post utterly pointless and worthless, I just ignore it. It's entirely beyond me why anyone else would whine about my posts ... except to increase the number of pointless and worthless posts on the board, for whatever reason some people apparently like to do that.

If something is worth thinking about and discussing, it's worth thinking about and discussing seriously. Anybody who doesn't want to do that remains welcome to ignore anything I write!


"We're all progressives here, right? Ultimately, we stand together."

Interesting theory, that first bit.

I don't see myself standing together with quite a lot of people here. I don't see them as on my side at all, and I don't even want them on my side.

And as far as that standing together goes, that was exactly my point about what you said, eh? Differentiating one's self from the others on one's side based on a mischaracterization of those others by the adversary, or inventing others in order to distinguish one's self from them, is pretty much the poster child for not "standing together".

.

[DoNotRefill]

66. Pot, meet Kettle.

"I wish that people who choose to discuss extremely serious and complex issues would make the tiniest effort to understand those issues, and that when they decide to express opinions about them they would avoid strewing totally pointless and worthless verbiage around the forum where they're doing it, multiplicities and flurries of posts serving no purpose whatsoever (except, all too often, to misrepresent the position taken by someone else)."

I get sick of it too, especially when delivered with such a condescending manner.

[RoeBear]

67. Dictionary meaning of Iverglas...

...see bandwidth, waste of.

[Terran]

69. Iverglas, with all due respect,

You read far more into my statements than is actually there.

It just reminded me of the "I'm not a feminist"s, you see. I'm not like those other silly people, who act out of improper motivations. I'm rational and well-intentioned; they're not. You can go ahead and ridicule/reject them, but you should like me.

You are, almost literally, putting words in my mouth--an act that I would have thought was beneath you. Yes, I do distinguish myself from those in this forum who, I believe from reading their posts, are purely "anti-gun". But I did not mean to imply a denigration of that position, and I think it's rather outrageous of you to pull meaning out of thin air the way you just did. I don't find it all unreasonable or "silly" that a lot of people just don't like guns and want to see them all disappear. I've never touched a gun in my entire life and don't want to. I only meant to say that my position is different: I don't believe I have The Answer to the question of gun violence, and therefore I don't assume, as do many here, that guns themselves are the problem.

Distinguishing my position from someone else's does not imply that I can't find common ground with them; nor should it imply some sort of cowardice on my part. You are, in effect, making me out to be some sort of RKBA collaborator, the Justice Forum quisling. I don't see it that way. As I said, we ultimately stand together, but we don't have to agree on this issue or a lot of others. Ultimately, I think everyone here (unless they're doing a great job of masquerading) is on the same side, although the acrimony engendered by the gun issue clouds that reality most of the time.

As for advocating for brevity, I'm sorry if I offended you. Your point is well-taken about worthless verbiage in this forum...but that doesn't alter the fact that the style you employ here is overly formal, and time-consuming to read. Many of us don't have the luxury of spending hours a day here, and therefore must often forgo the pleasure of your thoughts. Anyone who is as clearly competent at composition as you can surely find a way to reduce the word count.

Dirk

[iverglas]

70. yup, we disagree

You are, almost literally, putting words in my mouth--an act that I would have thought was beneath you. Yes, I do distinguish myself from those in this forum who, I believe from reading their posts, are purely "anti-gun". ... I only meant to say that my position is different: I don't believe I have The Answer to the question of gun violence, and therefore I don't assume, as do many here, that guns themselves are the problem.

Because I still don't see you differentiating yourself from anyone real. I see you differentiating yourself from a straw person. And even if that person exists, I just don't see much purpose served in differentiating one's self from him/her, in this context. Without naming the person or persons and saying what they have said, it is impossible to know what the real distinction is and whether it is worth distinguishing one's self from those particular persons.

I don't think that there is any necessary connection ("therefore") between "hav<ing> the answer to the question of gun violence" and "assum<ing> that guns themselves are the problem". Well, I suppose there might be, the other way around: "guns are the problem, therefore the answer to gun violence is to eliminate guns totally". I just don't see anyone saying that.

I simply don't know of any serious poster in this forum, let alone "many" such posters, who do either thing: believe that they have "the answer" to gun violence or, most relevantly here, assume that "guns themselves" are the problem.

I, for instance, do neither. I very definitely do not claim to have the answer to firearms violence. (If I did, you might imagine that I'd have shared it, and I haven't.) And I very definitely do not "assume" that firearms themselves are the problem. (If I did, I would not have written approvingly of protecting the tradition of subsistence hunting, of the economic importance of hunting, and of the constitutionally guaranteed aboriginal right to hunt, in Canada. I don't actually like the practice of hunting much, but I've never once actually said so, because my opinion is quite irrelevant to any issue here or the the public policy applied to firearms. And rather obviously, I do believe that firearms serve other necessary purposes in our societies.)

So I still just don't know whom you are distinguishing yourself from, this nebulous "those" and "many". I don't even know whether you include moi in their number.

Ultimately, I think everyone here (unless they're doing a great job of masquerading) is on the same side, although the acrimony engendered by the gun issue clouds that reality most of the time.

And we disagree there too, based apparently on different perceptions and different analyses of those perceptions. I simply do not think what you think, on this point. (And my perception/analysis of posters/things said in this forum is by no means unique in terms of my overall impression of the site itself.)

I think that it really is very important to know not just what side of the fence you're on, but also who is there with you.

Working my way slowly through the works of my favourite author, Graham Greene, I read The Quiet American a couple of years ago, and finally watched the movie this past weekend. The line is famous: "Sooner or later one has to take sides if one is to remain human."

I do not claim to have all the answers to all the questions, far from it; very certainly, no one ever could. But I occasionally find that I am able to take sides, and in fact must if I am to fulfil my responsibility as a human being. And that does involve knowing who's on my side and who isn't. I seldom think it's quite enough, to be on the side I'm on, for someone to espouse broad principles like "freedom". I generally need a little more commitment to (and willingness to make the necessary and usually hard choices, and sacrifices, in order to advance) things like the human security of those of us who are disadvantaged and vulnerable and in need of aid and protection ... that being one thing that I consider to be the responsibility of human beings, and one thing that I find insufficiently present among some whom I presume to be, in your view, on your side.

I am not at all offended by comments on my style or brevity, or lack thereof. I don't make them about anyone else's, as a rule, but I suppose that if I thought they might be helpful, I would. I don't much care if people incapable of understanding and discussing complex issues, or unwilling to discuss them with the gravitas they deserve, don't read or try to understand what I've written. Nothing I can do about it. And I'm quite firmly convinced that I could write in Dr. Seuss style and still receive no relevant response to anything I said from those who aren't capable of or interested in serious discussion. I admit to being perennially stunned by the thought that some people really do find it worthwhile, to themselves or others, for them to discuss such issues without an adequate knowledge base and/or to exhibit the bad faith that disregarding or misrepresenting other things said amounts to, but I'm just a cockeyed optimist destined to be forever disappointed, eh?

.

[Terran]

71. In answer to:

Let's call it 'Part 1' (for the sake of brevity ):

I do not include you in the people here I consider to be purely "anti-gun; and I'm going to decline to name the people I do feel are purely anti-gun. My opinions about that are subjective, and I don't want to publicly label anyone, because I wouldn't much like that myself. I also think naming names like that is a potential violation of the "calling out" rule of this board. It doesn't really matter who I have in mind as fitting the "anti-gun" description. You might simply trust that I'm not lying when I say that I do have certain individuals in mind, and in that sense I am comparing myself to real people with demonstrated real positions, and not strawmen. I think I have been specific enough, in various posts, about the nature of my thinking on the gun issue, for you to reliably compare me, on your own, if you want, with the opinions and thoughts of other posters here.

"Part 2': clearly we see this issue differently; perhaps because you are not saddled with a sociopathic smirking criminal for a national leader, as I am. We'll have to agree to disagree here.

Dirk

[1a2b3c]

55. Hey i second the brief posts

I dont even read them if its gonna take all night to get through a thread.

[RoeBear]

72. That's the thing...

...you take one look at all that keyboard diarrhea that Iverglas spews out and it's on to the next message. Kind of a 'too much information' ignore mode.

[1a2b3c]

74. I see im not the only one.

A long reply is cool sometimes when its needed...alot of questions were asked to you. Other than that, i dont see a need to post a short novel every time you reply. I skip it. It seems that you skip it.

[1a2b3c]

54. Yeah i guess i would have voted for that one if it was there.

[slackmaster]

23. None of the choices fit my primary two reasons precisely

I collect them as curiosities and antiques, but the main underlying motivations are 1) I like mechanical things, especially metal ones and 2) Financial investment. Of all the mechanical things I could collect, guns seem to be a reasonable compromise between things that are too big like cars and things that are too small and delicate to work on, like cameras and watches. I like clocks but they annoy me so I don't collect them.

I enjoy doing machine work, so gunsmithing serves to feed that hobby. I have built firearms from parts kits and metal stock.

[DoNotRefill]

25. Most of the above....

I'm ex military, ex law enforcement, own some guns for their collector's value (my "toys"), own some guns as self defense weapons (my "serious social purposes" guns, for both criminal and government work, and yes, I've been an attempted crime victim, and had my ass saved because I was armed) own some because they were handed down to me by the family (my "heirlooms"), own some just for recreational shooting (my "plinkers"), and some just because it pisses anti-gunners off and the Government doesn't want me to have them (my so-called "WMDs" or NFA stuff).

Self-defense would have to be my biggest...

[jody]

29. You might wish to add the following data to your work.

1999 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center: Research Findings

Table 18
QUOTE
Having a gun in the house allows people to better protect themselves from home invaders (agree) 60.2{percent}
AND
Having a gun in the house provides people with a sense of security (agree) 72.7{percent}
UNQUOTE

[Township75]

38. What ever happened to...

keeping the King of England out of your living room?

[iverglas]

39. that's a hard one to answer

"What ever happened to...
keeping the King of England out of your living room?"

Could it be that ... HE DIED?

If someone said "whatever happened to 'keeping the Klingons out of your living room'?", well, I'd react about the same way as I do to the question actually posed.

Woo. Medication time.

.

[MrBenchley]

40. Guess the poll should have included

"My brother in law left it where I could steal it" though...

[Township75]

42. Yeah, it should have....did you have anything to do with this poll Bench?

I mean, I haven't seen a poll this fucked-up since your last one.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Township75]

41. No, it's an easy one....

Here is a hint for you:

Have you listened to any Homer?

Now you are wonderful and admired.

[iverglas]

47. like ... the Iliad on tape?

No ... but the juvenile bit of my co-vivant's brain does occasionally try to make me watch The Simpsons if I'm not paying close enough attention to what he's doing with the remote.

And now no one must bitch when s/he fails to get my own cultural allusions.

Wot a bunch of Trailer Park Boys.<*>

So there.

__________________

<*> Bumbling idiots with guns. My own previously misinterpreted cultural allusion.

"If I can't smoke and swear, I'm fucked." TPB Ricky, to the judge (whom, conveniently for this context, he addresses as "Your Majesty"), explaining why it's contrary to "The People's Choices and Voices Act" to prohibit him from smoking and swearing in court as he defends himself on the charge of stolen/siphoned gasoline-selling. (In typical Canadian bleeding-heart liberal judge fashion, she agrees.)

Explaining one's jokes is just such a pain, isn't it? That's why everybody should write to his/her favourite TV network, and demand that it purchase all 3 seasons of Trailer Park Boys. Well, also because it's the best damned show on TV ... and nobody will have to quote lame things like The Simpsons then. And you can all laugh uproariously at Ricky getting the bullet extracted from his bum by the crooked veteraniarian after his kid daughter shoots him with the handgun she found in the kitchen drawer, while the dog eats the hash brownies. In Canada, gasp.

http://www.showcase.ca/trailerparkboys /

.

[Lefty48197]

51. I like to sit behind my couch with loaded weapons

hoping, wishing, and praying that some criminal will try to break into my house, so I can shoot him. Oh yeah, I'm also hoping that a foreign tyrannical army will invade so I can shoot them too.

[Wcross]

57. Seek help

You really ought to see someone about that. Imagination running away with you?

[1a2b3c]

58. I think this might be why they need to update

The mentally ill patients on the 4473.

[Wcross]

56. Home/self defense

I live alone on a farm in lower middle Tennessee, the nearest neighbor is 3/4 mile away. I am responsible for my own protection as the sherrif only has 4 deputies on patrol at any given time. I would also own a firearm if I lived in a city.

I own weapons that I have had experience with while I was in the Marine corps. (too bad I can't afford an M-60 tank- had experience with those also!) I qualified as expert at the range for both pistol and rifle.

When I go out to the road to tell a poacher that he has just poached a deer on my property and attempt to get his license number, your damn straight I want a M1-a or ar-15.

[demsrule4life]

59. Hey cross

I live in middle north alabama, 2 miles from the first exit (Ardmore)in AL off I-65. Maybe we could get a DU shoot get together going.

[jody]

60. Please let me come.

[demsrule4life]

61. Jody you are always welcome

What part of Al are you in?

[jody]

63. Montgomery of "Roy's Rock" fame eom

[Wcross]

62. I would be up for it

I am about 15 miles east of Shelbyville,Tn. I am real close to I-24 going towards Chattanooga. The range I go to now is south of Franklin,TN. I can shoot at my place but I am on a ridge and have no back-stop for rifles. I have been looking for a range that has at least 300yrds, it is hard to keep sharp at 100yrd. If you know of a nice range somewhere, I will show. Maybe we can invite some of the otherside and see if they have a change of heart?

[demsrule4life]

64. Cross I will check out a public range

near where I live to see what the distances the rifle ranges are, I have two rifles I need to get sighted in before hunting season starts. I have a good friend that doesnt live to far from Jody (Lawley) with lots of open area to shoot in.

[1a2b3c]

65. Hey i got my dog in Culman

Alabama.