LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


View Poll Results: Your stance on weapons law
Pro gun (all guns for self defence) 12 38.71%
Anti gun (no guns for self defence) 9 29.03%
Selective gun (only selected guns for self defence) 4 12.90%
other option 6 19.35%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 04-12-2019, 03:47 AM   #61
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,226
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Since the police force are a government agency and would prefer they were armed but the citizenry not, that sounds like "the fox guarding the henhouse" to me.
You are obviously unaware that the police in the UK are not armed. There are specialist armed units. If they shoot, they have to explain themselves in front of a public enquiry, but typical rank and file local police forces do not even carry tasers, let alone firearms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
I see your argument as speculation at best and "straw dog" at worst. I don't know you well enough to decide which is more likely... possibly a little of both.
Whereas yours are anecdotal at best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
I get the impression that you may support the idea that if even some really small number, possibly even just one, case of a stopped intruder was (for whatever reason I can't imagine) was actually as you put it "friendly fire" that this should be sufficient to outlaw firearms.
You're assuming a lot. In fact you seem to be rather intent on misrepresenting my arguments.

My main point is that the self defence argument is as flawed as the tired old 2nd amendment references... thus far we have no explanation of how a "right" from the late 1700s translates into modern times? We have no practical explanation of how the armed citzenry in any theoretical uprising somehow come off better than trained military personnel with the latest training, tactics, firepower, etc at their disposal - including air strikes and don't just die in their thousands in every possible scenario? By possessing arms and using arms in any uprising, you are simply guaranteeing that the military will put down any uprising very much in kind. We just know that it's a "right" and not much else.

The question in the OP of the thread was clear, the counter argument that more die from other causes are somewhat disingenuous.

We also have no clear explanation as to how a firearm can be safely stored away, in a secure locker and at the same time used for self defence of the home and family. My point is, that for the purpose of defence the weapon must be easily accessible and by being easily accessible, it is at risk of being obtained by the intruder and used against the owner. Anecdotal evidence does not resolve this point.

If a gun is owned and used for sport, a hobby, hunting, etc, if the owner is a responsible owner, if the gun is properly secured, then I have absolutely no problem with gun ownership - as with other posters. I've made that clear. If the gun is going to be used for "self defence", then that's where the problems arise and the conflicts between having a weapon secured and ready to use in defence start to appear. For example, hanging above your mantelpiece, loaded, with a trigger lock, is not a secured weapon. Locked up securely in a secure weapons locker and unloaded is secure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Our safety is never guaranteed no matter how much we might like to think it is. All we can do is objectively weigh the odds and I submit that if you have never lived within a community where essentially everybody is armed and guns are visible almost every day, then you can't truly be objective.
It works the other way as well - and as I've said twice now, in terms of the US, firearms is not something you can just put back in the box.

The real paradox of the 2nd amendment is that the scum also got the same right. They probably didn't think that through back at end of the 18th century, when the most clear and present danger was the possibility of a large Royal Navy fleet turning up out of the blue one night...

Last edited by cynwulf; 04-12-2019 at 06:18 AM. Reason: typos
 
Old 04-12-2019, 07:57 AM   #62
TB0ne
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Distribution: SuSE, RedHat, Slack,CentOS
Posts: 21,281

Rep: Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
You are obviously unaware that the police in the UK are not armed. There are specialist armed units. If they shoot, they have to explain themselves in front of a public enquiry, but typical rank and file local police forces do not even carry tasers, let alone firearms.
I understand from a cultural point why the police don't carry guns, but I am always surprised they don't carry Tasers. Very limited range (15 ft?) and non-lethal. A baton could do more damage.
Quote:
My main point is that the self defence argument is as flawed as the tired old 2nd amendment references... thus far we have no explanation of how a "right" from the late 1700s translates into modern times? We have no practical explanation of how the armed citzenry in any theoretical uprising somehow come off better than trained military personnel with the latest training, tactics, firepower, etc at their disposal - including air strikes and don't just die in their thousands in every possible scenario? By possessing arms and using arms in any uprising, you are simply guaranteeing that the military will put down any uprising very much in kind. We just know that it's a "right" and not much else.
Just to interject, I do get the point of that being from the late 1700's, but it still holds true. There were many back then that fought for the British, and some for Americans...just like in a theoretical uprising, I'm positive there would be some from the military who wouldn't follow their orders, and switch sides. And to (possibly) add fuel to the fire, an AR-15 isn't very far off from what is carried by the US military. Even uses the same ammo. And I've had the same training they have. Can't call in for artillery or armor support anymore, though.
Quote:
The question in the OP of the thread was clear, the counter argument that more die from other causes are somewhat disingenuous.

We also have no clear explanation as to how a firearm can be safely stored away, in a secure locker and at the same time used for self defence of the home and family. My point is, that for the purpose of defence the weapon must be easily accessible and by being easily accessible, it is at risk of being obtained by the intruder and used against the owner. Anecdotal evidence does not resolve this point.
Ignoring the obvious (that there could be a scuffle leading to a firearm being taken), there are ways. It's just me and my wife..no kids to watch out for, so I don't use trigger locks. But, I do lock my weapons in a gun safe when I leave the house. Unless they can spend half an hour with a cutting torch, they won't get mine. If we're home and have cause to feel unsafe (???), I'll have a pistol or shotgun nearby. But again, only when we're home. Otherwise, trigger locks+gun safe.

I've traveled before and have had occasion to bring a pistol, and have a Zore lock for it. Renders the weapon totally inoperable, unless you know the 'combination' for it, or unlock it with your phone with PIN + Fingerprint.
Quote:
If a gun is owned and used for sport, a hobby, hunting, etc, if the owner is a responsible owner, if the gun is properly secured, then I have absolutely no problem with gun ownership - as with other posters. I've made that clear. If the gun is going to be used for "self defence", then that's where the problems arise and the conflicts between having a weapon secured and ready to use in defence start to appear. For example, hanging above your mantelpiece, loaded, with a trigger lock, is not a secured weapon. Locked up securely in a secure weapons locker and unloaded is secure.

It works the other way as well - and as I've said twice now, in terms of the US, firearms is not something you can just put back in the box. The real paradox of the 2nd amendment is that the scum also got the same right. They probably didn't think that through back at end of the 18th century, when the most clear and present danger was the possibility of a large Royal Navy fleet turning up out of the blue one night...
Yep, but I will also say there are places where you pretty much NEED a weapon. There are areas not far from where we live, where the quickest a Sheriff/law enforcement can get there would be half an hour or more. And strolling around your property can get you a nice encounter with wild boar, or any number of snakes you don't want to bite you. Bears aren't uncommon just a bit north of us, and in a lot of the US, there are an abundance of other large-toothed critters you don't want to meet. I will typically carry a pistol in the woods, with the first round being snake-shot, and the others standard.
 
Old 04-12-2019, 08:55 AM   #63
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,226
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389
Quote:
Originally Posted by TB0ne View Post
I understand from a cultural point why the police don't carry guns, but I am always surprised they don't carry Tasers. Very limited range (15 ft?) and non-lethal. A baton could do more damage.
It's because they can be fatal in some cases. There have been a few fatalities here and they are still controversial.
 
Old 04-12-2019, 09:03 AM   #64
TB0ne
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Distribution: SuSE, RedHat, Slack,CentOS
Posts: 21,281

Rep: Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522Reputation: 5522
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
It's because they can be fatal in some cases. There have been a few fatalities here and they are still controversial.
Agreed, and here as well. However, a baton can also be fatal, and the Taser is pretty safe, unless used badly (read: repeatedly). There are going to be deaths, sadly, even if they use nothing but their hands to subdue someone. Personally, I'd rather have the police officer be unscathed, and be able to restrain someone in seconds, to keep things from escalating.

But again, there are notable cultural differences, and as you said, once you go down that road, it's hard to go back. I do wish more police were trained in de-escalation, though.
 
Old 04-12-2019, 09:04 AM   #65
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,133

Rep: Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
You are obviously unaware that the police in the UK are not armed. There are specialist armed units. If they shoot, they have to explain themselves in front of a public enquiry, but typical rank and file local police forces do not even carry tasers, let alone firearms.
I'm not unaware that regular police in the UK do not carry firearms but it simply doesn't matter to my point that police, maybe even especially unarmed ones, would prefer that the citizenry be unarmed. It is a classic conflict of interest ie - "fox guarding henhouse".

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
Whereas yours are anecdotal at best.
Yes they are and not only did I have the honesty to bring that point up as well as what may qualify as opposition in the interest of objectivity, but some experiences still trumps no experience mere imagination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
You're assuming a lot. In fact you seem to be rather intent on misrepresenting my arguments.
It's understandable that you would view it like that since we obviously have opposing points of view. It seems perhaps I have less difficulty with trying to poke holes in my own than you do, however. You seem 100% decided where I remain negotiable. If it can be shown that cost/benefit is actually in favor of outlawing ...well...anything, I would not have a problem with testing such data and bowing to the facts. So far all the real evidence I have seen points the other way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
My main point is that the self defence argument is as flawed as the tired old 2nd amendment references... thus far we have no explanation of how a "right" from the late 1700s translates into modern times? We have no practical explanation of how the armed citzenry in any theoretical uprising somehow come off better than trained military personnel with the latest training, tactics, firepower, etc at their disposal - including air strikes and don't just die in their thousands in every possible scenario? By possessing arms and using arms in any uprising, you are simply guaranteeing that the military will put down any uprising very much in kind. We just know that it's a "right" and not much else.
I see your main point but I find it hopelessly flawed and an example of wishful thinking. I pointed out your argument that a properly stored firearm is inaccessible during a home invasion is absolutely absurd possibly excepting cases where the occupants are taking sleep medication. If someone breaks into your home knowing it is occupied and knowing that society supports ownership of lethal weapons, they aren't about to come rushing in. There is plenty of time to both call the police and also make your weapon ready. Often just discharging a loud firearm is sufficient to send invaders scattering for their lives, but shouting "I'm armed, trained and ready" might delay that long enough for the police to arrive. If your bedroom door has a lock, the odds are even further to your advantage. You know the layout of your home. It's not likely they do. More often than not a home with guns has far better odds of not getting ripped off, kidnapped, or dead than one where the criminals KNOW you can't be armed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
The question in the OP of the thread was clear, the counter argument that more die from other causes are somewhat disingenuous.
I don't think it is at all disingenuous especially when noting the proportion of concern. It's like stopping to deal with a stubbed toe when you're running to the bathroom to get your heart attack medicine to save your life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
We also have no clear explanation as to how a firearm can be safely stored away, in a secure locker and at the same time used for self defence of the home and family. My point is, that for the purpose of defence the weapon must be easily accessible and by being easily accessible, it is at risk of being obtained by the intruder and used against the owner. Anecdotal evidence does not resolve this point.
Have you not noticed that more than one person has mentioned trigger locks? These can be mechanical or electronic and they work, rendering any weapon useless without a great deal of difficulty. Somewhat less substantial on it's own but training from childhood, familiarity and learned respect are also effective guards compared to complete ignorance. Included in the equation it does count and it shows up in anecdotal experience and objective statistics. If it didn't then various governments would not mandate various "scared straight" programs like the police required Motor Vehicle classes showing films of horrific accidents as the result of alcohol or reckless driving.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
If a gun is owned and used for sport, a hobby, hunting, etc, if the owner is a responsible owner, if the gun is properly secured, then I have absolutely no problem with gun ownership - as with other posters. I've made that clear. If the gun is going to be used for "self defence", then that's where the problems arise and the conflicts between having a weapon secured and ready to use in defence start to appear. For example, hanging above your mantelpiece, loaded, with a trigger lock, is not a secured weapon. Locked up securely in a secure weapons locker and unloaded is secure.
Ahh so you did see trigger locks. What makes you think that is insecure? If a child can't reach it, is taught that it is forbidden with dire consequences, but is allowed to be formally trained at a certain age under certain circumstances, the home is secure. A secure weapons locker is only important when nobody is home. When home and armed no invader is getting out of the house with an occupants weapons. I have no idea why you can't see the deterrent factor implicit in Mutually Assured Destruction. It's ugly, but it also works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
The real paradox of the 2nd amendment is that the scum also got the same right. They probably didn't think that through back at end of the 18th century, when the most clear and present danger was the possibility of a large Royal Navy fleet turning up out of the blue one night...
As simplistic as it may seem the cliche "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is a verifiable truism. If you doubt this then consider how successful the War on Drugs has been. Just as Richard Feynman demonstrated with a glass of ice water that the boosters for the Space Shuttle were not safe despite supposedly accurate specifications, someone whose name I forget and don't wish to look up (you can if you think I am mistaken or misrepresenting) brought a bag of crack cocaine purchased just a few city blocks from the White House to a discussion about the effectiveness of legislating possession. The Mayor of DC was filmed using cocaine with an undercover prostitute. So much for legislating possession, victimless crimes and crimes before they actually occur.

If you are honestly concerned about public safety it is my regarded opinion you need to seek another avenue because gun control will not give you what your after, and may in fact blow up in your face once driven "underground".

BTW and just FTR, if you assume I am some "gun nut" at my advanced age I can no longer go hunting and I live in a rural area where guns are quite common and despite the regular home invasion by skunks and bears, I currently don't own a gun or a bow anymore. That bear made it onto my screened in porch but cannot possibly break through my reinforced, locked, inner doors. I don't worry about human invaders at all, give the aforementioned circumstances. Skunks are most often just left alone.
 
Old 04-12-2019, 10:27 AM   #66
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,226
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389Reputation: 1389
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
I'm not unaware that regular police in the UK do not carry firearms but it simply doesn't matter to my point that police, maybe even especially unarmed ones, would prefer that the citizenry be unarmed. It is a classic conflict of interest ie - "fox guarding henhouse".
Well, the reality is that the police probably prefer that the population are unarmed, because they don't have firearms either... that's just logic, but it's not even for a decision for the police to make regardless. Such legislation goes through parliament.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
but some experiences still trumps no experience mere imagination.
But this works both ways - do you have any experience of living in a society without freely available firearms / where firearms are not part of popular culture?
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
You seem 100% decided where I remain negotiable. If it can be shown that cost/benefit is actually in favor of outlawing ...well...anything, I would not have a problem with testing such data and bowing to the facts. So far all the real evidence I have seen points the other way.
More wrong assumptions on your part and I have not made the case for outlawing anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
I see your main point but I find it hopelessly flawed[etc]
We appear to have different definitions of a "properly stored firearm". That's understandable - again cultural differences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Have you not noticed that more than one person has mentioned trigger locks? These can be mechanical or electronic and they work, rendering any weapon useless without a great deal of difficulty.
Do they prevent the weapon being stolen, fenced and sold on the black market to criminals? There are perhaps different scenarios than some rural family, in some isolated property, etc as seems to feature in all your examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
As simplistic as it may seem the cliche "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is a verifiable truism.
It is also said that if you carry a gun, you are more likely to be a victim: https://www.newscientist.com/article...ot-and-killed/

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
If you are honestly concerned about public safety it is my regarded opinion you need to seek another avenue because gun control will not give you what your after, and may in fact blow up in your face once driven "underground".
"Gun control" here seems to mean that we don't need to sleep with loaded firearms under our pillows, for fear of armed intruders - not a bad thing. From my perspective, it works here and it's a good thing. I'm grateful for that - but may not work so well elsewhere (as previously stated).
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
BTW and just FTR, if you assume I am some "gun nut"[...]
I am not making any assumptions about anyone in this thread.

 
Old 04-12-2019, 12:46 PM   #67
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 11,308
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934
I am now nearing completion of my fifth decade.
I have traveled extensively through Europe (and I mean the continent, not the union - and if you didn't know, that includes parts of russia), lived in dozens of different places, slept in literally thousands of different places, settled or wild, usually alone.
I still do this in the summertime.
I have felt fear a few times, be it because of human beings or some animals.

Never, ever have I carried a firearm or in fact any dedicated weapon.

The absolutely worst that ever happened is that someone stole the side mirrors from my car while I was sleeping in it.

Last edited by ondoho; 04-13-2019 at 12:37 AM.
 
Old 04-12-2019, 02:35 PM   #68
mjolnir
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 760

Rep: Reputation: 84
I have no way of knowing for sure but I bet a sizable number of people in Venezuela wish that they hadn't allowed themselves to be disarmed starting in 2012.
 
Old 04-12-2019, 03:53 PM   #69
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,210

Rep: Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
You are obviously unaware that the police in the UK are not armed. There are specialist armed units. If they shoot, they have to explain themselves in front of a public enquiry, but typical rank and file local police forces do not even carry tasers, let alone firearms.
And as a result the UK police are the most stabbed in the developed world. Hence the need for stab vests, oh and they are shot often as well. Right fabulous advertisement for criminals: oy our bobbies are handicapped and cant protect themselves.

Last edited by ChuangTzu; 04-12-2019 at 03:57 PM.
 
Old 04-12-2019, 03:55 PM   #70
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,210

Rep: Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081Reputation: 1081
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
I am now nearing completion of my fifth decade.
I have traveled extensively through Europe (and I mean the continent, not the union), lived in dozens of different places, slept in literally thousands of different places, settled or wild, usually alone.
I still do this in the summertime.
I have felt fear a few times, be it because of human beings or some animals.

Never, ever have I carried a firearm or in fact any dedicated weapon.

The absolutely worst that ever happened is that someone stole the side mirrors from my car while I was sleeping in it.
Interesting, but the fact that your reality is this does not preclude others from the right to protect themselves. That's one difference between freedom and tyranny, I am not going to force you to live a certain way (ie: you must have guns), but notice how tyranny does say you cannot protect yourself or own guns etc....
 
Old 04-13-2019, 12:43 AM   #71
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 11,308
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934Reputation: 2934
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Interesting, but the fact that your reality is this does not preclude others from the right to protect themselves. That's one difference between freedom and tyranny, I am not going to force you to live a certain way (ie: you must have guns), but notice how tyranny does say you cannot protect yourself or own guns etc....
so does your freedom also include the freedom to do or discuss:
  • kill other people
  • have sex with children
  • rape
  • take things you desire from your neighbor
  • kill your neighbor when they attempt to do the same
  • etc. - these are just a few examples of things that are forbidden by law practically everywhere on earth, whatever political model (tyranny) they apply
is it tyranny to forbid these things?

just saying, that freedom/tyranny argument makes zero sense.
 
Old 04-14-2019, 03:16 AM   #72
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,133

Rep: Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
so does your freedom also include the freedom to do or discuss:
  • kill other people
  • have sex with children
  • rape
  • take things you desire from your neighbor
  • kill your neighbor when they attempt to do the same
  • etc. - these are just a few examples of things that are forbidden by law practically everywhere on earth, whatever political model (tyranny) they apply
is it tyranny to forbid these things?

just saying, that freedom/tyranny argument makes zero sense.
C'mon ondoho... surely you see the difference? In every case you've listed above there is a distinct victim of an act of violence. Who is victimized by an individual merely possessing a weapon? A hammer can help build a home or cave a man's skull in. A car can make having a job possible and give you important mobility but it can kill people by either accident, negligence, or even on purpose. Do we outlaw cars?

The people who think guns should be outlawed think that's reasonable because they can't imagine how a gun can be used effectively for anything peaceful and law-abiding. I'm not saying everyone needs a gun but everyone isn't you and doesn't live in your circumstances. Maybe you can walk to work or take the Metro a few blocks away so you don't need a car. Maybe you don't have livestock to protect from predators. Maybe you live in a crime free environment or have complete confidence in your existing government and a coup is entirely impossible where you live. Maybe everything in your future is perfectly safe. That isn't true for everyone.

The most important issue is that if every gun in existence magically disappeared tonight and while we're at it and using magic let's add suddenly explosive powders that make firearms possible suddenly ceased to work and guns became impossible to recreate. Do you really imagine all crime and power plays would cease? Do you think you really would magically be safer? Do you not realize that firearms were and are the Great Equalizer since without them the biggest, strongest and most trained take whatever they want, including power over everyone else or have you not considered History?
 
Old 04-14-2019, 07:44 AM   #73
FredGSanford
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: USA
Distribution: Mageia Cauldron - VoidLinux - Devuan
Posts: 1,098
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 182Reputation: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trihexagonal View Post
If we go to East St. Louis I hope somebody has a gun...

I used to work for a landscaper who had a contract with the Army Corp. of Engineers to do all their property along a stretch of the Mississippi. They dropped me off in a parking lot in East Alton, IL. (just a few miles North of East St. Louis) by the river to leave for another job and said on average one body was found there a week. They weren't kidding.
Hahaha...I would bet the majority of those dumped bodies were from Missouri(STL) side.
 
Old 04-14-2019, 08:46 AM   #74
Trihexagonal
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2017
Location: Land of 1000 Nights
Distribution: FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Solaris
Posts: 191

Rep: Reputation: 208Reputation: 208Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredGSanford View Post
Hahaha...I would bet the majority of those dumped bodies were from Missouri(STL) side.
We did all the Corp. property along 100 miles of the Mississippi on both sides of the river. My Boss had a trailer rented off the lot of the gas station on the MO. side just before you cross the bridge to East Alton. We would drive down late Sunday night and stay the week when we worked there. All the fresh air, sunshine and exercise you could stand at Union Scale pay. None of us carried a gun but I always had a knife.


The guy I rode to work with and usually worked with was a meth head and a murderer. He had killed a guys sister and everyone knew it, supposedly by accident, then set the house on fire to cover it up. He did a year in jail but got off without being charged. My first day on the job he said "Call me James", which was not his real name, and used a fake SSN while working there.

He was always whacked out and I used to push him but knew when to quit, usually about the time he looked like he'd like to kill me too. One time I remember thinking "Lord, please get me back down to that levee where all have to worry about is getting bit by a poisonous snake".

He was finally shot and killed during a drug deal in St. Louis. I don't think they bothered to dump his body over there.

I voted Pro gun.

Last edited by Trihexagonal; 04-14-2019 at 09:01 AM.
 
Old 04-14-2019, 09:52 AM   #75
m.a.l.'s pa
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2007
Location: albuquerque
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 281

Rep: Reputation: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
I am now nearing completion of my fifth decade.
I have traveled extensively through Europe (and I mean the continent, not the union - and if you didn't know, that includes parts of russia), lived in dozens of different places, slept in literally thousands of different places, settled or wild, usually alone.
I still do this in the summertime.
I have felt fear a few times, be it because of human beings or some animals.

Never, ever have I carried a firearm or in fact any dedicated weapon.

The absolutely worst that ever happened is that someone stole the side mirrors from my car while I was sleeping in it.
Somewhat similar story here, but almost six decades, with much less travel outside of the U.S., and lots of time spent in places that are considered very dangerous. I have never owned a gun, and have never held one in my hands, unless I count water pistols when I was a kid (lol). A few situations where I had to fight off an attacker with my fists, and a couple of situations that I don't like to talk about where I survived getting stabbed. I would not have had a chance to even reach for a gun in any of those situations. In my case, things didn't go down at all like they do in movies.

I didn't vote in the poll. As to the question in the thread title, "Is America actually safer with gun allowance?" -- I don't think so.

If I would have been a gun owner, there are a few people who I would have tried to shoot, out of anger or out of fear. I'm sure of that.

At this point in my life, coughing up money to purchase firearms, training, trips to shooting ranges, I think that would be ridiculous. I don't know how much longer I have on the planet, but I'm gonna die one way or another, and there's very little chance that having a gun will help me avoid that! Mainly, I'm just trying to eat right and stay healthy these days, and to enjoy my little road trips around New Mexico and the Southwest.
 
  


Reply

Tags
safety


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dynamic local subnet allowance based on current IP xxmsaxx Linux - Networking 2 10-22-2009 01:18 PM
Trying to avoid bad color gun in old CRT ktvoelker Linux - Software 2 07-23-2005 10:14 AM
disk space allowance? whovian Linux - Newbie 2 07-10-2005 03:11 PM
why gun compiler doesn't work michaelwu Linux - Software 1 04-22-2005 02:50 AM
pcmcia, Mandrake, modules, and a smoking gun oiper Linux - Networking 0 07-26-2004 12:20 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:13 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration