Elmore the Vampire Slayer

***JohnnyCache*** · Posted On: 5/11/2005 11:10pm

Originally Posted by Feryk

I'm not Afro, but can I cut in?

I like the idea of gun control. I like it a lot. Why? Because of that 'small degree' of difference you mentioned. I don't believe 'most people' who own guns would NEVER use them in anything other than self defense.

A gun assumes one thing: lethal force. A gun doesn't have a 'dialed down' setting for only knocking someone out, or immobilizing them. If you wanted that, you'd carry a stun gun or a tazer or pepper spray. So a gun is really for one reason - it kills people, and frankly, most don't take a lot of skill to use (within reason).

MA training allows you to use varying degrees of force. It requires a large investment of time and effort. As a result, there are relatively few people willing to become expert MAists (that would pose a threat to me). However, if anyone can just go buy a gun and pack, that means I have to assume EVERYONE from grandma on down has the ability to use lethal force--on me.

I am not saying that people cannot be responsible about using a gun. Of course they can. However, when guns are easily available, that means more people have access to them. Even 'reasonable' people have been 'unreasonable' at various points in their lives. Having access to firearms makes them deadly. Those same people (unless they are MA experts), would be much less deadly without the gun.

You are exactly right about not knowing what level of force we will face out there. And we know that the person willing to go most extreme the quickest will usually win. So if I train MA, and I know I can go pretty extreme, would I want that advantage nullified because there are guns everywhere? No. I want guns to be as hard to get as possible. That way, my MA training gives ME the advantage over the general populace.

Could I be screwed if I run across a thug with a gun who wants to kill me? Yep. But if guns are harder to get, that chance is lowered. Also, if I have a gun, but the guy gets the drop on me, I'm just as dead, and now there are TWO guns out there for the rest of you to worry about.

Most people who use guns don't use them for self defense. I would estimate the majority of privately owned guns in america are sporting and hunting.

You train to hurt people with your bare hands - but you would deny that capability to others? You're basically saying self defense should be reserved for big, tough people.

The first paragraph of this was very confusingly phrased...but:

Gun control laws effect law abiding people. There have been historic examples of gun control working - but there are also examples of gun control failing, simply because criminals break laws.

Personally, I have lived in california and near the nation's capitol - very strict gun laws - and I have lived in places like wyoming and texas. Guess where I was less worried about the average criminal? (Keeping in mind that I am a huge guy with martial arts training, so gun control would, in theory, make me safer) - That's right, I felt safer (and statistically was actually safer) in gun country.

I also worked as a process server and repo man (kind of like a bailif for our UK readers) and I carried a gun on certain jobs. I never used it, but I did pull it once (on a guy that threatened me with a dog, which happened to me an unfortable amount. This occasion, I didn't think I could take the dog.) I was peppersprayed and tased in the course of that job - and it wasn't always enough to get rid of me.

And JKDC, I don't think a profuse number of legal guns makes people think they are a magic "juju stick" - I don't see how more gun owners actually using guns and more people getting gun education translates to people with a more unrealistic understanding of the capabilities of guns then people in countries with strict gun control.

**EternalRage** · Posted On: 5/11/2005 11:29pm

Sigh, Phil's probably laughing his ass off. He put us all in disarray with his gun talking and vampire slaying!!!

:sleepy4:

**Kungfoolss** · Posted On: 5/12/2005 1:11am

Originally Posted by Phrost

If they're not, sheltering them from criticism while claiming to be objectivist is akin to the Catholic church denouncing premarital sex while fondling choir boys.

I believe phil fondles farm animals. How else does one explain his warped personality?

**Kungfoolss** · Posted On: 5/12/2005 1:14am

Originally Posted by EternalRage

Sigh, Phil's probably laughing his ass off.

I don't see how, that's a lot of ass to laugh off.

**Kungfoolss** · Posted On: 5/12/2005 1:19am

Originally Posted by Poop-Loops

It can't be Blade. Wesley Snipes is black. Phil is scared of black people.

PL

phil would own Snipes, he'd give Snipes an anal probe.

**Kungfoolss** · Posted On: 5/12/2005 1:39am

Why is phil grimacing? ->

Is it -

One: It's a very bright and sunny day making phil squint?

Maybe it's -

Two: phil's posing with a weapon saying to himself, "I'm cool." and assuming Phrost will be impressed as well?

Or is it the most likely explanation -

Three: The belt strangling phil's belly.

***JohnnyCache*** · Posted On: 5/12/2005 1:52am

When will people figure out that a belt and tucked in shirt is not a friend to the man of girth, unless you're going as a ham wrapped in string for halloween. . .

**Kungfoolss** · Posted On: 5/12/2005 1:53am

Why is phil reacting in this fashion? ->

Is it -

One: phil outraged his state legislators just passed a law banning bestiality in his county?

Maybe it's -

Two: phil learning human services has moved in a bunch of homeless minorities next door to him?

Or is it the most likely explanation -

Three: Bullshido running another expose' on phil's idiocy.