Ayn Rand on Gun Control

[Dglgmut]

Michael, what about police? Is their money not worth risking their lives? The risk also has to do with how prepared you are for risky situations.

But the safest thing to be done is to fix the economy so there is less reason to steal shit... If there were endless opportunities for competent/creative people to earn money, guns wouldn't be much of an issue aside from the odd lunatic or drug addict.

Help the people that know how to utilize the help, then they'll lead the way for everyone else.

[Brant Gaede]

That was a very good post, Michael. My fav or yours so far by far.

--Brant

[syrakusos]

Brant, thanks. I like you, too, not quite the man crush MSK has on Glenn Beck - though I still carry a torch for Ted Keer - but well enough to buy you a beer should we ever meet.

dglgmut - this is pretty cluttered already, so I'm starting a new topic on the The Police.

[Xray]

Can you think of anything that would deter a "bad guy" from acting like one?

Death from being shot - it works every time its tried.

Death from being shot puts an end to a "bad guy's" life, but it does not automatically work as deterrent to the others. Just think about e. g. gang wars where they frequently shoot each other.

As for a society with no gun control: how is this supposed to work? Does it mean each citizen over eighteen can a purchase a weapon in a store as easily as e. g. a microwave?

I'm just trying to visualize a bunch of eighteen-year-olds entering a discotheque, each carrying a loaded gun. As the night progresses and the number of drinks has increased, 'brawl mood' sets in. Who would want to be present there?

Even the image of merely being in the subway, surrounded by fellow passengers who all (and this would include the irrational ones as well!) carry loaded guns terrifies me.

And frankly: isn't the idea of everyone being armed a step backward instead of forward toward a more rational society?

For iIf we all still need our own gun to protect ourselves, have we really moved that far beyond the stage of our stone-age ancestors who carried cudgels with them, always ready to strike?

[syrakusos]

And frankly: isn't the idea of everyone being armed a step backward instead of forward toward a more rational society?

Yet another reason why I wish we could vote for good posts.

[Brant Gaede]

Can you think of anything that would deter a "bad guy" from acting like one?

Death from being shot - it works every time its tried.

Death from being shot puts an end to a "bad guy's" life, but it does not automatically work as deterrent to the others. Just think about e. g. gang wars where they frequently shoot each other.

As for a society with no gun control: how is this supposed to work? Does it mean each citizen over eighteen can a purchase a weapon in a store as easily as e. g. a microwave?

I'm just trying to visualize a bunch of eighteen-year-olds entering a discotheque, each carrying a loaded gun. As the night progresses and the number of drinks has increased, 'brawl mood' sets in. Who would want to be present there?

Even the image of merely being in the subway, surrounded by fellow passengers who all (and this would include the irrational ones as well!) carry loaded guns terrifies me.

And frankly: isn't the idea of everyone being armed a step backward instead of forward toward a more rational society?

For iIf we all still need our own gun to protect ourselves, have we really moved that far beyond the stage of our stone-age ancestors who carried cudgels with them, always ready to strike?

Society would have all sorts of gun control absent anything the government might do. Firearms could be forbidden on your private property or it's criminal trespass. Etc. The U.S. is very different than Germany and Arizona is very different than New Jersey. Even here in Tucson I don't pack a gun but I could. I simply know where and when not to go. I also don't want to get into a gunfight. I might lose a gunfight. I open carried my magnum two years ago walking my dog and it kinda discombobulated a nice couple I ran into who knew who I was. Previously I had walked the dog at night the day before July 4 when some people get strange and packed the gun. A car slowly approached me and drove by, reversed direction and drove by again and drove off. You could easily see the revolver on my hip. It's a biggie. I do not live in a high crime neighborhood, but anyone can drive in from anywhere in a few minutes. I know how to use a gun and I know I can kill someone. If I have to shoot it's deadly force self defense and aim will be center mass and that man will be dead, not law suiting me later. I will not pull the trigger only once. Unlike Hollywood, a man cannot be knocked down by a handgun round. Even a .357 will leave him standing for a second or two so he'll get at least one more. Even a man dead on his feet tends to go down rather slowly. If I'm shooting the lighter 9mm I'll put at least five rounds into him. You cannot stop and evaluate after one or two. That could be the end of you.

--Brant

BTW, not many people pack guns in Tucson; they don't have the confidence or the felt need--in Montana a woman teacher jogger was grabbed and murdered by two thugs--she needed to have been packing; she might still be alive

[dennislmay]

As for a society with no gun control: how is this supposed to work? Does it mean each citizen over eighteen can a purchase a weapon in a store as easily as e. g. a microwave?...And frankly: isn't the idea of everyone being armed a step backward instead of forward toward a more rational society?

I have often observed the fallacy where people confuse the urban/leftist oriented society they have been raised in for an advanced or rational society. Having never observed other lifestyles and confusing their own for an advanced one they cannot understand what has been common in the past and common in rural areas. Just because socialist central planners in the cities have removed guns from every day life does not imply any advance in civilization or rational behavior. Quite the contrary in my opinion. Cultures not as horribly infected by socialist central planners see guns as tools for hunting, self-defense, and occasionally as actual tools unrelated to the other uses. In my fathers generation kids brought guns to school because they walked so far and having a gun meant they could hunt on the way home. When I was in school we brought in guns for show in tell or for minor repairs in shop class and no one was the least concerned because we didn't have a culture of urban fucked up kids on drugs running wild [not a rational society].

I never felt the need to carry a gun in rural areas because everyone had guns and there was virtually no crime. When I lived the in cities [not rational socities] I encounter crime and violence on a horrible scale but was disarmed by threat of force. There was more violent crime and theft on military bases than in rural areas I lived growing up - much less the horror that goes on in cities.

The version to the primitive is what goes on in cities where people live in fear and socialist central planners prevent them from protecting themselves or challenging the goals of the central planners. Corruption at every level is what goes on in the cities.

Where I lived in rural Nebraska in high school was by every measure of freedom more advanced than any city I've been in since. We didn't have to assume every kid walking around with a gun was a pyschopath - because they didn't raise psysopaths in rural Nebraska. The old Rand saying goes "check your premises". Which in this case means - check your cultural bias at the door.

Dennis

[Dglgmut]

As for a society with no gun control: how is this supposed to work? Does it mean each citizen over eighteen can a purchase a weapon in a store as easily as e. g. a microwave?

I'm just trying to visualize a bunch of eighteen-year-olds entering a discotheque, each carrying a loaded gun. As the night progresses and the number of drinks has increased, 'brawl mood' sets in. Who would want to be present there?

Is it much harder than purchasing a microwave to become a cop and have a right to carry a weapon? It may take longer, but you don't have to be exceptionally bright to be a police; you just have to show you can follow orders... and that's not always a comforting thought.

"Brawl mood" in a society where everyone carries guns? Who is so comfortable surrounded by guns they're going into a "brawl mood?" Do you think if everyone had guns, fist fights would be replaced by gun fights? No... they'd prevent the fist fights from getting even that far. Nobody would start a fight with a stranger unless they were willing to die for that fight... and if they're willing to die, laws aren't going to protect you ANYWAY.

In a rational society people wouldn't carry guns? They're automatically irrational if they carry them, so only irrational people can... wait, isn't that a Catch-22? Yeah... If everyone carried a gun, but everyone was rational, what's the problem? It's like owning car insurance and never getting in an accident...

[Dennis Hardin]

It's true that Rand "never specified the process of consent by which individuals (Americans, in our case) have supposedly delegated certain rights (or the power to enforce certain rights) to their government." It may also be true to say that this has "never been done by any O'ist philosopher[Ghs]." I suspect that's because it is fairly obvious that there is no way that any government would ever have the full consent of all the citizens in a given geographical area.

Dennis,

Your argumentation is based on an empirical fact (no government so far has ever had the full consent of all citizens), but I have the feeling that this is not the reason why Rand never went into specifying the process of consent. Imo her argumentation was implicitly based on her ideal of a "rational" society, with minarchism as the "rational" solution, from which it follows that rational individuals would therefore naturally consent to this form of government; not to consent would be "irrational".

Imo the lack of practical advice how to get there, how to achieve the rational ideal is neglected in Objectivism because Rand thought that rational individuals just 'know' what to do, because they 'know' what is ''right''.

Rand believed that spreading a rational philosophy was the key to achieving a free society. I think you’re right in the sense that she believed that the politics of a free society would just naturally fall into place once people adopted a rational philosophy. She thought she needed to devote her energy to clarifying the basic questions of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. She figured politics was the easy part.

I continue to believe she was right about that, which is why my only interest in the whole anarchy-minarchy debate is to find a way to get others to stop wasting valuable time on it. And that, incidentally, is also a complete waste of time.

Discussing the nature of consent and how it should be understood in a political context is no more a "waste of time" than discussing topics like rights and the proper limits of government. The fact that you turn a blind eye to certain problems, preferring to evade them rather than deal with them forthrightly, does not make those problem a waste of time for others who care about the nature of a free society.

From now on, if someone asks if you agree with Rand about "government by consent," just say, "Yes, but I won't tell you what I mean by consent, because that would be a waste of time. I will tell you when people should consent to a government, and that's all you need to know."

Ghs

Thanks very much for the advice, George, but if it's all the same to you, I would rather continue giving the question of the meaning of "government by consent" more thought, and then post my own response when I'm ready to do so.

Clarifying "the nature of consent and how it should be understood in a political context" is a complex issue, precisely because, as I stated above, such consent can never be universal. I never said addressing that particular question was a "waste of time."

What a shame that webforum debates with you so often degenerate into this kind of invective. I recall that Nathaniel Branden often expressed similar bewilderment about Ayn Rand, wondering why someone so brilliant would feel the need to shift into attack mode when others disagreed with her. People who feel truly confident about their positions do not normally need to do that.

[George H. Smith]

It's true that Rand "never specified the process of consent by which individuals (Americans, in our case) have supposedly delegated certain rights (or the power to enforce certain rights) to their government." It may also be true to say that this has "never been done by any O'ist philosopher[Ghs]." I suspect that's because it is fairly obvious that there is no way that any government would ever have the full consent of all the citizens in a given geographical area.

Dennis, Your argumentation is based on an empirical fact (no government so far has ever had the full consent of all citizens), but I have the feeling that this is not the reason why Rand never went into specifying the process of consent. Imo her argumentation was implicitly based on her ideal of a "rational" society, with minarchism as the "rational" solution, from which it follows that rational individuals would therefore naturally consent to this form of government; not to consent would be "irrational". Imo the lack of practical advice how to get there, how to achieve the rational ideal is neglected in Objectivism because Rand thought that rational individuals just 'know' what to do, because they 'know' what is ''right''.

Rand believed that spreading a rational philosophy was the key to achieving a free society. I think you’re right in the sense that she believed that the politics of a free society would just naturally fall into place once people adopted a rational philosophy. She thought she needed to devote her energy to clarifying the basic questions of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. She figured politics was the easy part. I continue to believe she was right about that, which is why my only interest in the whole anarchy-minarchy debate is to find a way to get others to stop wasting valuable time on it. And that, incidentally, is also a complete waste of time.

Discussing the nature of consent and how it should be understood in a political context is no more a "waste of time" than discussing topics like rights and the proper limits of government. The fact that you turn a blind eye to certain problems, preferring to evade them rather than deal with them forthrightly, does not make those problem a waste of time for others who care about the nature of a free society. From now on, if someone asks if you agree with Rand about "government by consent," just say, "Yes, but I won't tell you what I mean by consent, because that would be a waste of time. I will tell you when people should consent to a government, and that's all you need to know." Ghs

Thanks very much for the advice, George, but if it's all the same to you, I would rather continue giving the question of the meaning of "government by consent" more thought, and then post my own response when I'm ready to do so. Clarifying "the nature of consent and how it should be understood in a political context" is a complex issue, precisely because, as I stated above, such consent can never be universal. I never said addressing that particular question was a "waste of time." What a shame that webforum debates with you so often degenerate into this kind of invective. I recall that Nathaniel Branden often expressed similar bewilderment about Ayn Rand, wondering why someone so brilliant would feel the need to shift into attack mode when others disagreed with her. People who feel truly confident about their positions do not normally need to do that.

If you don't want discussions with me to degenerate, then don't call a topic that I have dealt with for decades, and about which I have published a great deal, a "waste of time." I take that as a personal insult, whether you intended this or not.

I said before, at least once, that the problem of consent is not inherently linked to the minarchism/anarchism debate, at least not as that controversy is understood today. The problem of consent is one of the most fundamental and widely discussed topics in modern political philosophy, beginning in the early 17th century with Sir Robert Filmer. Filmer argued that no government can be based on consent, and his arguments were later picked up by Hume, Burke, Bentham, and others. None of these people were anarchists. They merely rejected consent as the foundation of government. Most argued that government is ultimately based on "utility" instead.

Ghs

[syrakusos]

Where I lived in rural Nebraska in high school was by every measure of freedom more advanced than any city I've been in since. We didn't have to assume every kid walking around with a gun was a pyschopath - because they didn't raise psysopaths in rural Nebraska. The old Rand saying goes "check your premises". Which in this case means - check your cultural bias at the door.

Dennis

in Montana a woman teacher jogger was grabbed and murdered by two thugs--she needed to have been packing; she might still be alive

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Apparently, they do not raise psychopaths in Nebraska, but do raise psychopaths in Montana. Anyone have a story about Kansas or Idaho? Is there a psychopathic continental divide through the Dakotas?

I will agree that there is a rural versus urban divide, but I am not sure what is divided. Criminologists theorized that African Americans suffer from a "culture of violence." Then, Liqun Cao and others tested that theory by examining emergency room reports. Statistical analysis revealed a culture of violence, indeed -- in the south. As African-American culture was informed by the white culture around it -- not standing down to an insult leads to duels of honor, for instance -- they inherited the violence of white southerners.

Michigan was barely a state when August Woodward quickly hanged a man who was later found out to have been innocent. The constitution was amended. Michigan has not had capital punishment for 160 years. Texas is just the opposite, a leader in executions going back to day one. The two states always have had approximately the same homicide rates.

I am not sure what is proved. I am sure that we easily find justifications for what we believe already.

[Selene]

Folks:

Crime statistics do not determine the natural right of an individual to own weapons in a free society, or, our limited Constitutional Republic and certainly not in a mini-anarchist or anarchist society.

Adam

[dennislmay]

The problem of consent is one of the most fundamental and widely discussed topics in modern political philosophy, beginning in the early 17th century with Sir Robert Filmer. Filmer argued that no government can be based on consent, and his arguments were later picked up by Hume, Burke, Bentham, and others. None of these people were anarchists. They merely rejected consent as the foundation of government. Most argued that government is ultimately based on "utility" instead.

George brings up fundamental issues because indeed they are fundamental and remain current topics requiring more discussion. Governments not formed through consent cannot claim to protect freedom as their existence is created and maintained through force. It is not obvious that any real government can be based on anything other than "utility". I have thought of serveral science fiction societies that could be based on consent. The closest to a real "consent" based government I can envision requires the industrialization of space first. Between now and then - barring some breakthrough - the arguments will continue. One of the largest "consent" issues in any type of society remains security both internal and external. In my opinion the solutions to "consent" and security issues require a situation that only exists in science fiction or in some types of socities possible in space.

Dennis May

[dennislmay]

I will agree that there is a rural versus urban divide, but I am not sure what is divided.

Voting patterns indicate collectivist thinking in the cities, less so in rural areas. If

you cut the cities out of voting in Missouri the voting pattern would resemble states

like Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota and other less collectivist states.

Living in cities requires sacrificing a great many freedoms that people who have

always lived in cities don't realize they have lost. Patterns of taxation and regulation

are designed to concentrate government power and spending in the cities - drive

businesses and opportunities from rural areas - thus increasing collectivism.

The divide is very real.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

I do not live in a high crime neighborhood, but anyone can drive in from anywhere in a few minutes. I know how to use a gun and I know I can kill someone. If I have to shoot it's deadly force self defense and aim will be center mass and that man will be dead, not law suiting me later. I will not pull the trigger only once. Unlike Hollywood, a man cannot be knocked down by a handgun round. Even a .357 will leave him standing for a second or two so he'll get at least one more. Even a man dead on his feet tends to go down rather slowly. If I'm shooting the lighter 9mm I'll put at least five rounds into him. You cannot stop and evaluate after one or two. That could be the end of you.

In concealed carry classes they teach to shoot until they are no longer resisting or are incapacitated. That will vary case to case. The latest wisdom is that 9mm in on the weak end of self protection for your primary carry gun. 9 mm is going to be phased out as the standard military handgun caliber because it has shown itself to be inadequate in many cases. 9mm is on the big side of what is used for a hidden backup gun but some of the latest small models will work for that purpose - a little too big for my taste. I can't say I have a favorite caliber for primary but I like .380 ACP for small hidden backup. Anything bigger than 9mm in power should work for primary.

Dennis May

[Brant Gaede]

I do not live in a high crime neighborhood, but anyone can drive in from anywhere in a few minutes. I know how to use a gun and I know I can kill someone. If I have to shoot it's deadly force self defense and aim will be center mass and that man will be dead, not law suiting me later. I will not pull the trigger only once. Unlike Hollywood, a man cannot be knocked down by a handgun round. Even a .357 will leave him standing for a second or two so he'll get at least one more. Even a man dead on his feet tends to go down rather slowly. If I'm shooting the lighter 9mm I'll put at least five rounds into him. You cannot stop and evaluate after one or two. That could be the end of you.

In concealed carry classes they teach to shoot until they are no longer resisting or are incapacitated. That will vary case to case. The latest wisdom is that 9mm in on the weak end of self protection for your primary carry gun. 9 mm is going to be phased out as the standard military handgun caliber because it has shown itself to be inadequate in many cases. 9mm is on the big side of what is used for a hidden backup gun but some of the latest small models will work for that purpose - a little too big for my taste. I can't say I have a favorite caliber for primary but I like .380 ACP for small hidden backup. Anything bigger than 9mm in power should work for primary.

Dennis May

I used to own a .380 Colt Mustang. It was stolen. I'm glad it's gone. I'm not into head shots. A policeman in Rockland County NY once told a gun owner to keep firing until he ran out of ammo, and not to tell he ever said that. The military replacing the .45 cal 1911 with a 9mm was a joke from day one. I got my hands on a .45 cal Grease gun--same round--in Vietnam and had some fun firing it, but the rate of fire was too slow and the damn thing went up and down with the travel of the heavy bolt. Good for cleaning out an enclosed space and not wasting rounds leaving you with nothing to keep shooting with when you needed to keep shooting. You had to be cold blooded to use that thing with every thing in you saying, "Fire faster! Fire faster!"--cold blooded like Clint Eastwood in The Unforgiven.

--Brant

[dennislmay]

Folks:

Crime statistics do not determine the natural right of an individual to own weapons in a free society, or, our limited Constitutional Republic and certainly not in a mini-anarchist or anarchist society.

Adam

Quite correct - two separate issues.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

I do not live in a high crime neighborhood, but anyone can drive in from anywhere in a few minutes. I know how to use a gun and I know I can kill someone. If I have to shoot it's deadly force self defense and aim will be center mass and that man will be dead, not law suiting me later. I will not pull the trigger only once. Unlike Hollywood, a man cannot be knocked down by a handgun round. Even a .357 will leave him standing for a second or two so he'll get at least one more. Even a man dead on his feet tends to go down rather slowly. If I'm shooting the lighter 9mm I'll put at least five rounds into him. You cannot stop and evaluate after one or two. That could be the end of you.

In concealed carry classes they teach to shoot until they are no longer resisting or are incapacitated. That will vary case to case. The latest wisdom is that 9mm in on the weak end of self protection for your primary carry gun. 9 mm is going to be phased out as the standard military handgun caliber because it has shown itself to be inadequate in many cases. 9mm is on the big side of what is used for a hidden backup gun but some of the latest small models will work for that purpose - a little too big for my taste. I can't say I have a favorite caliber for primary but I like .380 ACP for small hidden backup. Anything bigger than 9mm in power should work for primary.

Dennis May

I used to own a .380 Colt Mustang. It was stolen. I'm glad it's gone. I'm not into head shots.

--Brant

.380 Colt Mustang resembles the recent line of Sig-Sauer 1911 model .380 autos. The Sig looks nice - the plastic holsters that come with them are no good at all and they snag on woven plastic holsters that would be appropriate for that size. The Ruger .380 LCP in .380 is very popular right now but very short range.

If you go .50 GI in a Glock-20 or 21 frame with 300 grain bullets you will likely feel no need to go larger any time soon.

Dennis

[Brant Gaede]

I do not live in a high crime neighborhood, but anyone can drive in from anywhere in a few minutes. I know how to use a gun and I know I can kill someone. If I have to shoot it's deadly force self defense and aim will be center mass and that man will be dead, not law suiting me later. I will not pull the trigger only once. Unlike Hollywood, a man cannot be knocked down by a handgun round. Even a .357 will leave him standing for a second or two so he'll get at least one more. Even a man dead on his feet tends to go down rather slowly. If I'm shooting the lighter 9mm I'll put at least five rounds into him. You cannot stop and evaluate after one or two. That could be the end of you.

In concealed carry classes they teach to shoot until they are no longer resisting or are incapacitated. That will vary case to case. The latest wisdom is that 9mm in on the weak end of self protection for your primary carry gun. 9 mm is going to be phased out as the standard military handgun caliber because it has shown itself to be inadequate in many cases. 9mm is on the big side of what is used for a hidden backup gun but some of the latest small models will work for that purpose - a little too big for my taste. I can't say I have a favorite caliber for primary but I like .380 ACP for small hidden backup. Anything bigger than 9mm in power should work for primary.

Dennis May

I used to own a .380 Colt Mustang. It was stolen. I'm glad it's gone. I'm not into head shots.

--Brant

.380 Colt Mustang resembles the recent line of Sig-Sauer 1911 model .380 autos. The Sig looks nice - the plastic holsters that come with them are no good at all and they snag on woven plastic holsters that would be appropriate for that size. The Ruger .380 LCP in .380 is very popular right now but very short range.

If you go .50 GI in a Glock-20 or 21 frame with 300 grain bullets you will likely feel no need to go larger any time soon.

Dennis

Now we're being like Montgomery Cliff and John Wayne comparing pistols in Red River.

--Brant

[dennislmay]

I do not live in a high crime neighborhood, but anyone can drive in from anywhere in a few minutes. I know how to use a gun and I know I can kill someone. If I have to shoot it's deadly force self defense and aim will be center mass and that man will be dead, not law suiting me later. I will not pull the trigger only once. Unlike Hollywood, a man cannot be knocked down by a handgun round. Even a .357 will leave him standing for a second or two so he'll get at least one more. Even a man dead on his feet tends to go down rather slowly. If I'm shooting the lighter 9mm I'll put at least five rounds into him. You cannot stop and evaluate after one or two. That could be the end of you.

In concealed carry classes they teach to shoot until they are no longer resisting or are incapacitated. That will vary case to case. The latest wisdom is that 9mm in on the weak end of self protection for your primary carry gun. 9 mm is going to be phased out as the standard military handgun caliber because it has shown itself to be inadequate in many cases. 9mm is on the big side of what is used for a hidden backup gun but some of the latest small models will work for that purpose - a little too big for my taste. I can't say I have a favorite caliber for primary but I like .380 ACP for small hidden backup. Anything bigger than 9mm in power should work for primary.

Dennis May

I used to own a .380 Colt Mustang. It was stolen. I'm glad it's gone. I'm not into head shots.

--Brant

.380 Colt Mustang resembles the recent line of Sig-Sauer 1911 model .380 autos. The Sig looks nice - the plastic holsters that come with them are no good at all and they snag on woven plastic holsters that would be appropriate for that size. The Ruger .380 LCP in .380 is very popular right now but very short range.

If you go .50 GI in a Glock-20 or 21 frame with 300 grain bullets you will likely feel no need to go larger any time soon.

Dennis

Now we're being like Montgomery Cliff and John Wayne comparing pistols in Red River.

--Brant

Don't recall that movie but I agree. It is on YouTube in 13 parts if you recall what part of the movie that part is.

Dennis

[Selene]

Now we're being like Montgomery Cliff and John Wayne comparing pistols in Red River.

--Brant

Don't recall that movie but I agree. It is on YouTube in 13 parts if you recall what part of the movie that part is.

Dennis

Don't think it is Wayne and Clift, but Clift and the "new hand" who is a very fast gun from the Missouri border wars maybe. I am embarrassed to say that I have never seen this movie which I will be rectifying by Sunday night.

Try beginning at 8:44 of this section...there is a great line in the exchange about the next two (2) best things in the world to a fine handgun, 1) a swiss watch and 2) any woman...he then asks Clift if he has ever had a swiss watch! Excellent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RXakmn2KEM&feature=BFa&list=PLE9EEA8A76C88AC1F&lf=plcp

[Backlighting]

I do not live in a high crime neighborhood, but anyone can drive in from anywhere in a few minutes. I know how to use a gun and I know I can kill someone. If I have to shoot it's deadly force self defense and aim will be center mass and that man will be dead, not law suiting me later. I will not pull the trigger only once. Unlike Hollywood, a man cannot be knocked down by a handgun round. Even a .357 will leave him standing for a second or two so he'll get at least one more. Even a man dead on his feet tends to go down rather slowly. If I'm shooting the lighter 9mm I'll put at least five rounds into him. You cannot stop and evaluate after one or two. That could be the end of you.

In concealed carry classes they teach to shoot until they are no longer resisting or are incapacitated. That will vary case to case. The latest wisdom is that 9mm in on the weak end of self protection for your primary carry gun. 9 mm is going to be phased out as the standard military handgun caliber because it has shown itself to be inadequate in many cases. 9mm is on the big side of what is used for a hidden backup gun but some of the latest small models will work for that purpose - a little too big for my taste. I can't say I have a favorite caliber for primary but I like .380 ACP for small hidden backup. Anything bigger than 9mm in power should work for primary.

Dennis May

I used to own a .380 Colt Mustang. It was stolen. I'm glad it's gone. I'm not into head shots.

--Brant

.380 Colt Mustang resembles the recent line of Sig-Sauer 1911 model .380 autos. The Sig looks nice - the plastic holsters that come with them are no good at all and they snag on woven plastic holsters that would be appropriate for that size. The Ruger .380 LCP in .380 is very popular right now but very short range.

If you go .50 GI in a Glock-20 or 21 frame with 300 grain bullets you will likely feel no need to go larger any time soon.

Dennis

I have a Glock 40 cal. with a laser sight. It's not difficult to shoot, feeds flawlessly & holds 15 in the mag. A nice frearm. Good stopping power, somewhere between a 9mm & a .45

A 12 gauge with a pistol grip, hits like the hammer of Thor & is good in tight quarters. That will be my next purchase.

Ammo prices have been on the rise so it's prudent to acquire as much as you can afford while you can.

[Selene]

I do not live in a high crime neighborhood, but anyone can drive in from anywhere in a few minutes. I know how to use a gun and I know I can kill someone. If I have to shoot it's deadly force self defense and aim will be center mass and that man will be dead, not law suiting me later. I will not pull the trigger only once. Unlike Hollywood, a man cannot be knocked down by a handgun round. Even a .357 will leave him standing for a second or two so he'll get at least one more. Even a man dead on his feet tends to go down rather slowly. If I'm shooting the lighter 9mm I'll put at least five rounds into him. You cannot stop and evaluate after one or two. That could be the end of you.

In concealed carry classes they teach to shoot until they are no longer resisting or are incapacitated. That will vary case to case. The latest wisdom is that 9mm in on the weak end of self protection for your primary carry gun. 9 mm is going to be phased out as the standard military handgun caliber because it has shown itself to be inadequate in many cases. 9mm is on the big side of what is used for a hidden backup gun but some of the latest small models will work for that purpose - a little too big for my taste. I can't say I have a favorite caliber for primary but I like .380 ACP for small hidden backup. Anything bigger than 9mm in power should work for primary.

Dennis May

I used to own a .380 Colt Mustang. It was stolen. I'm glad it's gone. I'm not into head shots.

--Brant

.380 Colt Mustang resembles the recent line of Sig-Sauer 1911 model .380 autos. The Sig looks nice - the plastic holsters that come with them are no good at all and they snag on woven plastic holsters that would be appropriate for that size. The Ruger .380 LCP in .380 is very popular right now but very short range.

If you go .50 GI in a Glock-20 or 21 frame with 300 grain bullets you will likely feel no need to go larger any time soon.

Dennis

A 12 gauge with a pistol grip, hits like the hammer of Thor & is good in tight quarters. That will be my next purchase.

Ammo prices have been on the rise so it's prudent to acquire as much as you can afford while you can.

Semi auto I assume you will be acquiring.

[Xray]

As for a society with no gun control: how is this supposed to work? Does it mean each citizen over eighteen can a purchase a weapon in a store as easily as e. g. a microwave?

I'm just trying to visualize a bunch of eighteen-year-olds entering a discotheque, each carrying a loaded gun. As the night progresses and the number of drinks has increased, 'brawl mood' sets in. Who would want to be present there?

Is it much harder than purchasing a microwave to become a cop and have a right to carry a weapon? I would say it is.

It may take longer, but you don't have to be exceptionally bright to be a police; you just have to show you can follow orders... and that's not always a comforting thought.

The focus of my post was not on cops (or on all those whose job involves carrying guns, like hunters, soldiers, security staff, etc.) -

but on on the problems that can arise if all adult citizens have legal access to guns.

"Brawl mood" in a society where everyone carries guns?

Note that I wrote above: "as the night progresses and the number of drinks has increased". Alcohol can loosen inhibitions and reduce the awareness for dangerous situations.

Who is so comfortable surrounded by guns they're going into a "brawl mood?" Do you think if everyone had guns, fist fights would be replaced by gun fights?

In the context outlined above - (which has bunch of eighteen-year-olds, each of them carrying a loaded gun, during an evening in a discotheque where they also have a couple of drinks) - this may well happen.

No... they'd prevent the fist fights from getting even that far. Nobody would start a fight with a stranger unless they were willing to die for that fight... and if they're willing to die, laws aren't going to protect you ANYWAY.

Again, see the above context.

I used a fairly extreme example to address a crucial point: with every adult having free access to guns, not all will handle them responsibly.

In a rational society people wouldn't carry guns?

If you mean by "rational society" that all its members are rational, who would need to carry a gun there?

They're automatically irrational if they carry them, so only irrational people can... wait, isn't that a Catch-22?

There is no Catch 22 because my argumentation does not rest on the premise that everyone carrying a gun is irrational.

Yeah... If everyone carried a gun, but everyone was rational, what's the problem?

The problem is that a premise of everyone being rational does not reflect reality.

Either - or scenarios rarely work because they tend to disregard the complexity of an issue.

[dennislmay]

I do not live in a high crime neighborhood, but anyone can drive in from anywhere in a few minutes. I know how to use a gun and I know I can kill someone. If I have to shoot it's deadly force self defense and aim will be center mass and that man will be dead, not law suiting me later. I will not pull the trigger only once. Unlike Hollywood, a man cannot be knocked down by a handgun round. Even a .357 will leave him standing for a second or two so he'll get at least one more. Even a man dead on his feet tends to go down rather slowly. If I'm shooting the lighter 9mm I'll put at least five rounds into him. You cannot stop and evaluate after one or two. That could be the end of you.

In concealed carry classes they teach to shoot until they are no longer resisting or are incapacitated. That will vary case to case. The latest wisdom is that 9mm in on the weak end of self protection for your primary carry gun. 9 mm is going to be phased out as the standard military handgun caliber because it has shown itself to be inadequate in many cases. 9mm is on the big side of what is used for a hidden backup gun but some of the latest small models will work for that purpose - a little too big for my taste. I can't say I have a favorite caliber for primary but I like .380 ACP for small hidden backup. Anything bigger than 9mm in power should work for primary.

Dennis May

I used to own a .380 Colt Mustang. It was stolen. I'm glad it's gone. I'm not into head shots.

--Brant

.380 Colt Mustang resembles the recent line of Sig-Sauer 1911 model .380 autos. The Sig looks nice - the plastic holsters that come with them are no good at all and they snag on woven plastic holsters that would be appropriate for that size. The Ruger .380 LCP in .380 is very popular right now but very short range.

If you go .50 GI in a Glock-20 or 21 frame with 300 grain bullets you will likely feel no need to go larger any time soon.

Dennis

I have a Glock 40 cal. with a laser sight. It's not difficult to shoot, feeds flawlessly & holds 15 in the mag. A nice frearm.

Your Glock, 40 S&W cal. is the most popular choice in semi-auto main carry guns for several years now. It is also the most popular

choice for police and game wardens. Hard to go wrong with that.

Dennis